User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Index to The Signpost
I'm kind of ashamed to say I just found Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Index after being a contributor for so long! Do you know who's been tagging articles? I want to thank them. Also, do you have an opinion on making the index easier to find? Maybe I'll propose adding it to the bottom of the article page. What do you think? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
ODB citeref default
Are you sure about this? From what I can see, Template:Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium generates CITEREFODB unless last or last1 is specified, when it generates CITEREFLast1991. That happens in my sandbox. The coding of the forwarded |ref= means Khazhdan doesn't get a chance to be the default name. David Brooks (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh - I just remembered that I had made that suggestion myself, in a contribution to Module talk:Footnotes a little while back. I misread the template source and didn't test it. I did check it a few days later but didn't update my comment. Brain is full of mush these days. David Brooks (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Again, my brain is full of mush these days. I've been trying to characterize the different styles of CITEREF generation in the most-whitelisted templates and tripped over myself. The item you added was valid (of course). Looking at all the ODB transclusions, I saw that 289 uses have no named author, Kazhdan is credited as author as well as editor in 104, and Baldwin&Khazhdan in two. I'll go quietly. David Brooks (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm think I'll file an incident report on you for aggressive, angry, and insulting behavior and arbitrary editing. Smallchief (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Smallchief: Go ahead, see the WP:BOOMERANG. I have been neither aggressive, nor insulting, nor has my editing been arbitrary. The material is disputed and their is currently no consensus either way. The tags need to remain while this is so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Possible refspam
89.159.44.130 at Predatory publishing is likely the author of the ref they added (they've added refs to multiple of same author's work to various pages). I have no idea the value of the refs themselves, just noting the behavior if you're interested. DMacks (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Unlinking titles
In this edit you removed the link from the title in a citation. The RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs made very clear its support for linking titles in citations where possible. Please don't unlink any more titles as that is disruptive. Thanks for your understanding. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- That was not at all the question asked there RexxS. If you think there is general support for duplicate URL not automatically managed, you should start a discussion at a relevant talk page. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Motivation ... As a reader, it is natural to click on the title of a citation to access it. Clicking on identifiers is less intuitive, even when they are marked as free with Free to read.
– from the header section of the RfC linked above.- It most certainly was the issue discussed, Izno. Just read the comments in the RfC and you won't be in any doubt that giving the reader a link from the citation title was the overriding consideration of the commentators. I feel no need to waste editors' time rehashing exactly the same arguments. If you feel that there is general support for not having a link in the citation title, then I suggest you take the time to raise it at WP:VPR which is where the relevant discussion already took place.
- Headbomb supported the proposition, so I'm assuming that he simply forgot that adding s2cid parameters don't yet automatically add a link in the title. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I quite clearly didn't make the edit. If you have a problem with the edits Citation bot makes, take them to User talk:Citation bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- You quite clearly were responsible for the edit, as the edit summary contains Activated by Headbomb. I see that you have continued to use the bot to remove links, despite my request. Are you going to continue to do so when the bot is unblocked? and what steps are you going to take to reverse the damage your bot run has done? --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I asked the bot to make an edit, yes, but the bot made the edit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Good, I'm glad we've agreed you asked the bot to make the edits. Now, what are you going to do about fixing the damage caused by those edits? --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- If it's considered useful, User:OAbot could be called in to (re)add the links, but I'd need the consensus to materialise at a new bot approval. Nemo 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Good, I'm glad we've agreed you asked the bot to make the edits. Now, what are you going to do about fixing the damage caused by those edits? --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I asked the bot to make an edit, yes, but the bot made the edit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- You quite clearly were responsible for the edit, as the edit summary contains Activated by Headbomb. I see that you have continued to use the bot to remove links, despite my request. Are you going to continue to do so when the bot is unblocked? and what steps are you going to take to reverse the damage your bot run has done? --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I quite clearly didn't make the edit. If you have a problem with the edits Citation bot makes, take them to User talk:Citation bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
"Pion (publisher)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pion (publisher). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Pion (publisher) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
fyi
PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You Citation Bot Script
Change https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations to https://citations.toolforge.org/ AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Linking EB1911 to Wikisource
Than you for this this edit to Emilian people. I am currently working my way through "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference" and the this article appeared since I looked about 24 hours ago, and hence on to this comment. If you add a citation to EB1911 then please first try "wstitle=Emilian people". If that leads to a red page on Wikisource then use "title=Emilian people" instead (along with a link to an alternative source).
There is a project on Wikisource which is porting the remaining EB1911 pages onto Wikisource and as an alternative if you link to a red page you could help that project by adding the missing EB1911 article. This is easy if the article is short and without tables or images. See
Encyclopedia of Islam DOIs
Hi! The EI actually specifies the url as the preferred form of reference/citation of their online works. Plus it is built into the template. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Refs fixing tool
Would you please run the refs fixing tool that you just applied to Vitamin D to Pantothenic acid and Niacin? I am moving those through the Good Article process, and want the references and other stuff improved. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. But you can also do that yourself, just check Wikipedia:Citation expander (and also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks for advanced tips). The bot is currently blocked, but the edit button method will work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Why published researches for Abbashar Hussein page was deleted?
Hello,
Why published researches for Abbashar Hussein page was deleted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbashar_Hussein
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiddigm (talk • contribs)
- Read WP:NOTCV and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. An external link to a list of publication is sufficient. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology
You removed a number of citations from the above publication "Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology" as you feel them to be predatory publishing. Have you got a source for that? I can't see it listed anywhere I've looked. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Mrjulesd: It's published by Xia & He Publishing, a well known predatory publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, that explains things to me. But I have a number of further questions:
- Is there a blanket ban on predatory journals? Or only ones that are not considered reliable?
- The citation I was concerned about is indeed from that journal; but it is also hosted on the "PubMed Central (PMC) is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM)." [1]. Doesn't that suggest the source is reliable?
- The above source is authored by academics from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, a recognized educational institution (79th best public university). Doesn't that also suggest reliability?
- The edit here [2] leaves a statement unsourced, which of course could lead to its removal. So removing of that particular ref could be problematic. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- If they are predatory journals, they are by definition not reliable. And being in PubMed Central (or even PubMed) is nothing special. PMC will feature several predatory journals simply because they are open / simply because there is a legal requirement to include US-funded research regardless of where it was published. Likewise for being from a particular university. Academics from virtually every university have published in predatory journals for reasons that are both innocuous (they got fooled into thinking it was a reputable venue) to nefarious (they can't get shody scholarship published elsewhere, so wilfully go to venues that are pay-to-publish). See WP:MEDRS and WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia for more details. Xia & He Publishing have well-known problems, so I doubt you will convince many people that they are a suitable source for Wikipedia. But you can try your luck at WT:MED and maybe people will consider that source acceptable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK thanks very much for your replies. I probably wont take it further as you're probably right that its pointless. But after some research I do think you're slightly wrong in your appraisal of PMC: according to their blurb [3] the National Library of Medicine undergoes a vigorous process for journal selection, and don't publish under the criteria you mentioned. But I also dug up [4] which claims that there may be flaws in the journal selection process for both PMC and PubMed, and that while they exist they are less rigorous than MEDLINE and possibly open to abuse. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- If they are predatory journals, they are by definition not reliable. And being in PubMed Central (or even PubMed) is nothing special. PMC will feature several predatory journals simply because they are open / simply because there is a legal requirement to include US-funded research regardless of where it was published. Likewise for being from a particular university. Academics from virtually every university have published in predatory journals for reasons that are both innocuous (they got fooled into thinking it was a reputable venue) to nefarious (they can't get shody scholarship published elsewhere, so wilfully go to venues that are pay-to-publish). See WP:MEDRS and WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia for more details. Xia & He Publishing have well-known problems, so I doubt you will convince many people that they are a suitable source for Wikipedia. But you can try your luck at WT:MED and maybe people will consider that source acceptable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, that explains things to me. But I have a number of further questions:
Dr Claude Franceschi
Bonjour, Je vous écris en français, ayant compris qu'il s'agit de votre langue maternelle. J'ai vu vos encouragements et votre enthousiasme pour créer des pages sur Wikipedia. A part quelques interventions ponctuelles, j'ai écrit une biographie sur le Dr Claude Franceschi, après qu'il ait guéri ma mère de graves problèmes de santé. C'est un travail important, avec de nombreuses références, et qui permet de mieux connaître les travaux du Dr Franceschi. Par exemple, la méthode de soin des varices est en cours de développement en Chine et y a déjà fait l'objet d'études de grande ampleur. J'ai publié l'article en plusieurs langues : français, anglais, espagnol. J'en ai aussi réalisé un en italien qui avait été immédiatement supprimé. Il est actuellement sur ma page sandbox sur ce lien : https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Geiss/Sandbox. Le Dr Claude Franceschi est co-auteur avec le Pr Paolo Zamboni du livre "Principles of venous hemodynamics", un ouvrage de référence. https://novapublishers.com/shop/principles-of-venous-hemodynamics/ J'ai tenté de proposer la publication de la page à l'administrateur italien, Kirk39, qui avait contribué à sa suppression. Il me répond qu'il faudrait trouver une personne compétente pour donner son avis sur la pertinence de la page. Auriez-vous une idée sur la meilleure façon de procéder. Un grand merci d'avance.--Geiss (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Geiss: Ne connaissant pas cette personne ou son domain d'expertise, je ne peux pas vraiment vous donner de conseils spécifiques. Je vous suggère donc WP:MED/WT:MED comme page ressource. Je note que Nova Science Publishers n'est normallement pas une maison d'édition particulièrement réputable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)