User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2021/December
 | 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. |
Hello, Headbomb,
This page has gotten deleted and then recreated 12 times, five of those times just since September 2021. There is not point in continually tagging this page for deletion if a bot will immediately recreate it and we go through this cycle again in 2 weeks. Maybe you need to talk to the bot operator and get the bot not to recreate this page and then it can be deleted for good. If not, then we just have to live with its existence. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- We're near an equilibrium point. The page is needed, for a day or two, then cleanup happens, then it's not needed anymore. If enough cleanup is done, and we are getting close to that point, then it won't be needed anymore. Unless more sources are covered, and it becomes needed again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
| Bots Newsletter, December 2021 | ||
|---|---|---|
BRFA activity by month Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots. Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots. Overall
September 2019 .jpg)
October 2019
November 2019 
December 2019
In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out! Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.) | ||
Predatory sources query
Hey, so clearly there's a big problem with Turkish sources, because this is the second time I've noticed this, but can I ask how you are identifying sources such as the one on Iplikçi Mosque, and, similarly, do you have a tool that is showing you where the original research came from? If there's a predator then I assume there is something predated that contains the same information. That source supported rather key facts! Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: You can check WP:UPSD, WP:CITEWATCH, and User:JzG/Predatory. You can also cross-check against https://beallslist.net [both the publisher and the journal list]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks - those are useful references. But can you just show, this once, where this particular journal pops up, because I've tried using those resources and just can't find it, under Tojned, Tojsat, The Online Journal of Science and Technology, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Both Tojned and Tojsat (or their full name equivalents) pop up on Beall's list (standalone journals). They also advertise fake impact factors on their websites and are lying about being indexed in DOAJ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, ok, thanks again for the clarification. I've done a little digging around the paper in question to try to understand its origins. For context, I'm bothering with this, because this paper is hands down the most detailed material on this specific subject that I've found, appears well sourced and contains images and plans of the building in question not found anywhere else. Anyway, what I've found is that while I agree that Tojsat is less than confidence inspiring as a platform, and I have no doubt may aggregate research from other sources, in this instance, the paper in question appears to be research original to a Paris conference involving both Tojsat and Sakarya University, a significant research university in Turkey. I've separately found the paper listed under the profiles of one of the authors on a separate university website, attributing the paper to the aforementioned conference, and noting the author's other urban architecture-related work. My question is this: even if Tojsat is generally disregarded as a predatory resource, is there a Wikipedia methodology whereby individual sources that may have been published on this platform might be deemed to be reliable if there origins are reliably attributed, unpredated, to that journal? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: See WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- My final question would be: how are predatory publishers qualified by Wikipedia? I've noticed that Beall's list only identifies what it calls "potential predatory publishers" and that Beall's methodology has itself received criticism. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'll flip the question around, how could you consider Tojsat to be a reliable source when it's lying about basic things like being indexed in DOAJ. It's promoting fake impact factors. These are the biggest possible red flags you could have about a journal being predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is there any definitive Wikipedia policy on this, or is it all just discretionary? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in validating Tojsat as a journal: I'm just wondering if there are any clear guidelines on any of this, because writing off every article ever published by certain publishers seems a bit like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. It's fine, I'll probably just look for the sources behind the source and get around it that way. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'll flip the question around, how could you consider Tojsat to be a reliable source when it's lying about basic things like being indexed in DOAJ. It's promoting fake impact factors. These are the biggest possible red flags you could have about a journal being predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- My final question would be: how are predatory publishers qualified by Wikipedia? I've noticed that Beall's list only identifies what it calls "potential predatory publishers" and that Beall's methodology has itself received criticism. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: See WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, ok, thanks again for the clarification. I've done a little digging around the paper in question to try to understand its origins. For context, I'm bothering with this, because this paper is hands down the most detailed material on this specific subject that I've found, appears well sourced and contains images and plans of the building in question not found anywhere else. Anyway, what I've found is that while I agree that Tojsat is less than confidence inspiring as a platform, and I have no doubt may aggregate research from other sources, in this instance, the paper in question appears to be research original to a Paris conference involving both Tojsat and Sakarya University, a significant research university in Turkey. I've separately found the paper listed under the profiles of one of the authors on a separate university website, attributing the paper to the aforementioned conference, and noting the author's other urban architecture-related work. My question is this: even if Tojsat is generally disregarded as a predatory resource, is there a Wikipedia methodology whereby individual sources that may have been published on this platform might be deemed to be reliable if there origins are reliably attributed, unpredated, to that journal? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Both Tojned and Tojsat (or their full name equivalents) pop up on Beall's list (standalone journals). They also advertise fake impact factors on their websites and are lying about being indexed in DOAJ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks - those are useful references. But can you just show, this once, where this particular journal pops up, because I've tried using those resources and just can't find it, under Tojned, Tojsat, The Online Journal of Science and Technology, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).
The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.
Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Planck's law edits
:<math></math>
is not recommended for indentation use, as seen in MOS:INDENT and MOS:INDENTGAP. 163.118.116.18 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- See also Help:Displaying a formula. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
EasyWikiDev
Hi! I'm User:Ed6767. I'm probably best known for founding and developing Wikipedia:RedWarn, which is now one of the most used user scripts on the English Wikipedia. I couldn't help but notice that you also develop user scripts, so I was wondering if I could ask you to try and give me feedback on my new tool called EasyWikiDev. It's a new way to develop user scripts quickly and easily using Visual Studio Code, and only takes a few minutes to set up and install on your computer, whilst saving you the headache of constantly having to save edits and reload the page for every single change to your script you'd like to test. EasyWikiDev makes it so you can develop your script locally, on your own computer, and only publish the changes to your users when you are ready to - and unlike other solutions, EasyWikiDev reloads the page right away when you make a change, so you always see the latest version of your script. Plus, by using Visual Studio Code, you have access to some of the most extensive and helpful extensions and tools available to developers right now.
If you're interested, you can find the GitHub repository here and a video tutorial that shows both how to set up EasyWikiDev and how to use it (which you should watch) here. When you have tried it and would like to give feedback, or just need help, please let me know by pinging me - you'd play a big part in my goal to make user script development easier for all Wikipedians. Thanks again for your consideration, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 12:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ed6767: afraid I can't give much feedback since I don't really do vandal fighting. As for 'my' scripts, they were coded by others, namely User:SD0001 and User:GeneralNotability mostly. I'd suggest WP:VPT and WP:SCRIPTREQ instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ed6767, this sounds cool - I'll give it a try! GeneralNotability (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference/class has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am Itcouldbepossible. In the above template, there is a section called "Wikimedia" and in it there is a subsection "Active". In it there is a specific newsletter titled as "Wikidata". Why did not you link it to wikidata? If you give me permission, then can I add the link? Thanks. ― ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Itcouldbepossible: You don't need my permission to edit anything. See WP:BOLD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, but in the past may editors have asked me not to do anything which is too bold, as it sometimes results in foolish things, and risk being blocked. Thanks for your permission. ― ItcouldbepossibleTalk 15:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry it is already there. I saw it just now. It is already there as status updates, and I was also talking about the same. ― ItcouldbepossibleTalk 15:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Citations
Hi there. The issue with the one citation, which is the citation which puts it over the notability barrier, is that there is no information on the citation so that someone looking at the WP article knows where that information is. Onel5969 TT me 22:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Onel5969: A paywall is not a reason to put cleanup tags, and that you personally can't view it doesn't mean the source is inadequate. The source of impact factors is Journal Citation Reports. Go to your local university library if you need access to this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)