User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2021/May
 | 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. |
I've G6'd this no-longer-needed project page, as you requested via CSD tag. Before deleting the talk page per G8, are the old conversations on that talk page useful to preserve? Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Allied Academies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Allied Academies, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Academies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=1023135526&oldid=1023135081 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Would you consider removing the WT:RS discussion, or clear your comment so I can do so?
Hi Headbomb . I agree with your comment at WP:RS [1], but think at this point it should be on the editor's talk page as evidence for a WP:NOTHERE block. You may not have seen it, but the editor has been starting multiple such discussions, and ignoring the feedback given. I'd like to remove the discussion thread with your permission. --Hipal (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Seeking feedback for my article
Hi @Headbomb:,
I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I saw that you made a contribution to this article and was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve it.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2102sa (talk • contribs)
- @S2102sa: I know nothing of the subject, so I would suggest asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trade. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Headbomb:,
Okay, thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2102sa (talk • contribs)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for your support for the References! (several complex variables and wikiproject:mathematics.) Let me sign the guestbook later. SilverMatsu (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC) |
Artificial Organs Journal Opening Paragraph
Hello!
First of all, thanks for taking a look at the Artificial Organs page. I just wanted to ask about the last line that talks about the journal's associated societies. I added a separate section that listed all of the societies, so I am wondering if that last line in the opening is redundant. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortillathehun (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Medip
Can you provide me with a direct link to the section discussing reliability of the Medip Academy? You have only linked to an announcement. I can't find the mentioned discussion and conclusion. I noticed a listing on Beall's List, but also inconclusive. Pinging to Wikiman5676 as well.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Farang Rak Tham: Feel free to google "Medip Academy predatory" and find plenty of results. Moreover, what we want is sources that met WP:MEDRS, and the International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health falls well short of being recognized as a reputable journal. Again, if you have an issue with this, feel free to take it to WP:RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, i see now that much of it has been made on different websites. Still, it is questionable to me to refer to a discussion or listing on the Citewatch page, when so such discussion or listing seems to have been held. Also, the websites you mention all refer to Beall's list, which is inconclusive about Medip, and more importantly is very dated information. WP:NRS (and not WP:RNS, mind you) is only relevant when a discussion has already been held, and I would want to challenge that. No such discussion has been provided by you as yet, so there's nothing to challenge.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)