User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/May

I need your help

Hi Headbomb,

I hope that you remember me :-)

I have a problem :-( Some Wikipedian reverted my 7 consecutive edits, then restored only one. These edits took me a lot of time and effort. Were they all wrong? Really? Could you please take a look at them? Vikom ^talk 03:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vikom: I suggest discussing this on the talk page. I have no opinion at the moment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for approving my BRFA a mere 11 minutes after I filed it, and for the trust you put in me ("I would have liked to see a greater variety of categories, but you know what you're doing. Do more supervised testing if you feel the need for it"). It turns out I did end up making a couple of wrong edits (36) due to a few edge cases with different template formatting, but otherwise the ~9k edits went smoothly. Again, thank you. DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Bimetric gravity anon is back at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit

I don't think it's Petit himself; their walls of text have more of a "biggest fan" feel. But anyway, because they're now just out-and-out lying about what I've said in the past, I figured it was a time for ANI. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

BRFAs

Hi. I see that you appear to be currently only - when you have a few minutes, can you take a look at the current BRFAs that are open? I have 2 that have finished trials, and 2 more that haven't started them, and a few more lined up (I didn't want to file them all and overwhelm the process) - if you could take a look I'd be grateful. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RSN comment

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Help with sources: What is COI and when does it matter?. (For clarity: This is purely FYI – all "You might appreciate some of the information here, whenever you have five minutes to glance at it", and not "Please stop doing more important things and join this conversation".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019 Text mining display of noun phrases from the US Presidential Election 2012 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Semantic Web and TDM – a ContentMine view Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while. It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining). Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?" The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata. The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right. ScienceSourceReview, introductory video: but you need run it from the original upload file on Commons Links for participation http://sciencesource-review.wmflabs.org/, review tool link in the left-hand sidebar at http://sciencesource.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue. Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Randykitty/monobook.js

Hi, could you have a look at this file when you have a moment? I have popups selected in my preferences, so I think some of this stuff could (or should) be removed, but I'm pretty helpless with this... Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ask at WP:VPT. I'm not very good with scripts. User:DannyS712 and User:TheDJ usually are though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Seeing that even you are challenged here, too, makes me feel less inadequate... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your edits to the PAMELA detector page are greatly appreciated and I can see it took a lot of work! Thanks (: MrAureliusRTalk! 15:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! And concerning [1], the 'attempted fix' means the bot tried to fix the link, and failed to do so. Meaning this is something that can't just be fixed by a running a generic bot on it, and needs human review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

bioRxiv

Hey there, Headbomb,

I just wanted to reach out and thank you for the edits on the bioRxiv wiki page. I do appreciate the entire community effort. I wanted to let you know that I'll be re-entering the data that was removed on December 12, 2018. As the product lead for the bioRxiv project, it's my responsibility to keep the list up to date. (Yes, I know it might be unwieldy for the general public to maintain that list, but heck, it's just one of the job responsibilities I have when we add or remove a journal from the list of participating publishers.

... hehe, now I just have to research how to revert that list. (Is there a quick way I can restore that list?)

Thanks for all your support

````

Kevin-John Black — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joescales (talk • contribs) 11:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Joescales, you might want to read WP:COI to see if it applies to you. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but better safe than sorry. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Joescales: I doubt that's a great idea. The list was getting too long to be useful, and a summary of how many journals is, IMO, better than an exact listing (which is still provided as a reference, for those interested in finding out which journals support biorxiv). I suggest bringing this to Talk:bioRxiv for more widespread discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot at WP:AN

I started a thread at the administrator's noticeboard to try to find a way forward with this, and would welcome your participation there, due to your involvment in botty matters generally, as well as Citation Bot in particular. UninvitedCompany 17:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just clarifying

Hey I hope my RS noticeboard post didn't come off like I was just complaining about your work or something. I sort of assumed that sourewatch worked the same way as WP:RSP. My bad for haphazard reading. Nblund <sup>talk</sup> 18:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Oh not at all! I don't expect people to know the exact details of how everything works, or claim the current state is anywhere near complete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)