User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/January

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MDPI; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You should be experienced enough to know this - but pious appeals to go to Talk when you're continually reverting and not engaging there is pretty poor Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Likewise. Shame you continue to engage in this, so I will also template you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Which would be WP:POINTy since I am obviously aware of the policy from the above. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not, since you still reverted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I post on Talk, while you just revert. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, after I asked you twice to do so, and that you still reverted. Now, instead of passing the shit stick around of who's to blame, let's focus on building an encyclopedia mmkay? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I see: you have the power to just keep reverting, while people who disagree with you have to go to Talk before they're allowed to. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, take a look at your own actions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Basically, once you revert a revert, you're edit warring. That's what you (and then I) did. A more civilized way to proceed would have been to follow WP:BRD maybe. Revert warring in one thing - but to do it while harping on about "taking it to Talk" and also not responding on talk before continuing to revert, just about takes the fucking biscuit. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

JCW-CleanerBot

Dear Headbomb,

I like the work of your bot very much. You are linking to the ISO 4 list, but may you please also publish a list of common pseudo-ISO-4 forms?

I would like to apply them for my home Wikipedia, which is not the English one.

Kind regards, Tarik der Wesir (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tarik der Wesir, you can find the relevant ISO 4 abbreviations at [1] (not perfect, but works well in 99% of English cases at least) and [2] (authoritative version). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I haven't expected that the list would be generated from generic abbreviations.--Tarik der Wesir (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Another question

I would like to get the redirect Paul Gotereau (an architect) deleted, since the man is more commonly spelled Paul Gotterau AND has also built many more buildings.

May you please help me with this?--Tarik der Wesir (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis and italics

In Special:Diff/877098276 you reverted an edit I made, your edit removing <em> tags and replacing them with ''. This is incorrect. <em> are preferred where emphasis is indeed intended, per MOS:ITAL. It appears you may have made this edit with a bulk editing tool; if this is the case please review your edits for mistakes. djr13 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Djr13: Take it to WP:AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I get it, but I'm not an AWB user and can't be responsible for its mistakes. I did briefly search its archives and saw the issue reported in 2012 with a response recommending against using <em> and instead using {{em}} to apparently demonstrate intentionality. However, neither MOS:ITAL nor MOS:EMPHASIS reflect any such recommendation, and treat them as equally valid. djr13 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reported the incorrect AWB fix suggestion in phab:T185840. However, regardless of outcome, AWB itself states in WP:AWBRULES, "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving." djr13 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, use {{em}}, because these will more-likely-than-not be converted to ''...'' by the next AWB user / the next AWB bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi, any chance you could have a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 4 please? It's been waiting for an initial comment for the last 2 weeks, I'm not sure if things are running slowly or if that's normal? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: honestly, I'm very unfamiliar with commons and how these template/categories interact, to the point I barely understand what the request is about. I believe @BU Rob13 and Xaosflux: have more experience there, so I would try contacting those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway, hopefully they'll spot this conversation through your pings. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Organic Reactions

Hi, normally I respond positively to requests from established editors to recreate as a draft, in this case I'm not so sure.

• One of the editors was Organic Reactions blocked as a user name violation. Before I removed it, his user page said OR is devoted to educating both experienced organic chemists and the general public about organic chemistry, and my work on Wikipedia is part of that effort., clearly a paid editor.

• The draft has no references at all, but three external links to the book and its publisher's websites
• The text is purely promotional, eg ... provide exhaustive coverage of literature work... comprehensive reference work that contains authoritative, critical reviews... solicited by the board of editors from leading chemists worldwide... high quality and attention to detail for which this series is noted... Organic Reactions is unique in providing an authoritative discussion of the topic reaction accompanied by tables that organize all published examples of the reaction being reviewed. This combination of critical discussion and thorough coverage is responsible for the leading position this series occupies for scientists interested in the reactions of organic chemistry. An additional distinctive feature of this series is that it is assembled almost entirely through voluntary dedicated efforts of its authors, editors and assistants... The books are published by John Wiley and Sons, Inc. who also manage and maintain the Organic Reactions website (in-text spam link)
• The history section then goes on with details of the meetings between the book's editors and its publishers, and The close relationship of Organic Reactions to Organic Syntheses, Roger Adams, and John Wiley & Sons is obvious; the great value of that relationship is equally obvious to all who have been connected with the series as editors and authors.
• There are no better versions in the article history, since most previous edits were by User:Mevans86 who is the same editor as Organic Reactions, but can't be blocked as a sock since the name change was authorised by the blocking admin.

The whole article is an unsourced extended puff for the book, with no indication how it meets WP:Notability (books). I've seen more neutral writing on Amazon.

My instinct is to decline restoration, since it's obvious notability-free spam by a COI editor that I don't want to reward. Even without that, it's unreferenced with no indication of notability. However, the nominator for deletion was also an admin, so I'll invite Randykitty to comment here too since he can also read the deleted text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, I completely agree with Jim, this was a hopeless advert. Better to start from scratch (if notable). If you really want to, I can email you the last version, but I don't really think that it would be helpful at all. I'll copy the external links listed here, in case you'd like to use them to start a new draft:

• OrganicReactions.org
• History of Organic Reactions
• Organic Reactions @ the ACS Division of Organic Chemistry
• Organic Reactions Primary Site

Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I must have remembered wrong then. I'll probably recreate from scratch then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot

I am avoiding the citeseerx discussion. Any further thoughts on it? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not really. CiteSeerX is a big boy site, and they have their big boy pants on. If there are copyright violations, they're the ones exposing themselves to lawsuits. I did contact them a while ago, and at that time, they apparently only responded to DMCA requests. I believe you need to be the copyright owner, or representative of the copyright owners to make a DMCA takedown notice sadly.

However, since then, they added a DMCA link directly on each page (e.g. CiteSeer^x: 10.1.1.488.5424, top right corner), and that link seems to allowed for the reporting of copyright violations, which if I understand things correctly, lets common mortals report issues. So if there's an issue with CiteSeerX, reporting there would be more productive than blacklisting here, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears that if ANY government resources were used in the preparation they get to claim immunity. http://vondranlegal.com/what-to-do-when-the-federal-government-infringes-your-copyright/ AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:08, 22 Jan 2019

another note. They truly are a big boy site and it is not as if the publishers do not know about them. The articles are easily found etc. this isn’t Napster with names slightly off to keep the police away. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

journal addition

In this edit did you mean to link Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy? — soupvector (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I fixed it. Copy-paste error it seems. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals has been nominated for discussion

Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CRAPWATCH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CRAPWATCH. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:CRAPWATCH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)