User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2021/October

Todd Snider

Hey, man, I'm reaching out to you for some guidance. I added a publicity photo that was sent to me by the record label to Todd Snider's Wikipedia page. I had asked the label for a more recent photo to post to his page and they sent me the one I posted. I have since received this message from a bot:

"Non-free rationale for File:ToddFACPRpic.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ToddFACPRpic.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)"

I clicked on the link provided, but I'm not really sure what I am supposed to do. Would you use able to give me some guidance on this? Thanks. William D. Money (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@William D. Money: My suggestion is to check with User:JJMC89 since they tagged it with the speedy deletion template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable6

Hello, Headbomb,

So far, this page has been deleted 9 times, twice by me, so I'm thinking that if it gets recreated again, we just let it be. There is no point in deleting this page if a bot keeps recreating it. Just a suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It keeps recreating it when there's a need for it (which is ~basically once per dump, before I cleanup the compilation). The issue is that when there's no longer a need for it, it still exist in an outdated state and shows up in {{JCW-main}}. Hence the need for deletion.

It won't always get recreated, we just need to cut down on a bunch of crappy citations enough that when there's an extra 30-40 false positives, they're still on /Questionable5 instead of spilling over to a /Questionable6. We're close to that point, and making decent progress (last dump 491 entries post cleanup, this dump 476 entries post cleanup, a progress of 15 entries) but we're close to the tipping point, so it goes back and forth for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Frontiers Media

Hello Headbomb. Thank you for updating the list of journals on the Frontiers Media article as you did in these edits. I appreciate your effort to make the list accurate and up-to-date.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Predatory journals

Thanks for removing that from the History of LGBT characters in animation page. It looks like there are lists of predatory journals like Cabells' Predatory Reports, Beall's List or other lists in the future. There is probably more stuff out there about He-Man anyway, so I'm not that concerned about that. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Historyday01: no worries. You might want to check WP:UPSD to spot these more easily btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I'll check that out.--Historyday01 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

BHGbot 9

Hi Headbomb

WP:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9 has completed its trial.

You wanted the bot to keep {{Cleanup bare URLs}} on pages which still had bare URLs in places other than in ref tags. That took quite a lot extra coding, but it is now working.

Since this extra work was done to meet your objection, I would value your feedback at BRFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Hi Headbomb. I'm trying to find out who controls the script which displays a source's reliability when I hover over it at an article. I have the following script installed, and wonder if this is what does it: User:Headbomb/unreliable.js

I just added a book to the list of External Links at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. While there, I noticed that a The Guardian article is listed by a script as generally unreliable, but at WP:RS/P it is listed as generally reliable.

So, is it your script that does this? If so, will you please fix the rating for The Guardian? Please ping me. -- Valjean (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: If you mean Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#News media, it's highlighting a YouTube link as generally unreliable per WP:RSP#YouTube. The note explains what YouTube content is allowed/disallowed, and after that it's to users of the script to use their brains, per WP:UPSD#What it does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Duh! Facepalm. I didn't notice that the actual link was to Youtube. I guess the script can't distinguish between official channels, which are RS, and all the other chaff on Youtube which we don't consider RS. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible proto-guideline for reliable sourcing in physics and mathematics

I've learned that over the years, there have been sporadic efforts to get a guideline for reliable sourcing on scientific topics off the ground, basically by cloning WP:MEDRS. These have never gotten very far; see WP:SCIRS and the discussions in the archives from 2010 and 2019(!). I had the thought that it might be simpler to advance something with narrower scope, so I started working up math-and-physics-specific advice here. I'm not sure if this is the right path to follow, but it does seem like having something along these lines would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily against this, I can't see I particular see a need for this in the physics area. In medicine you have a bunch of homeopaths/horseshit peddlers promoting herbal remedies as the cure to everything, or making vague "improves the metabolism" nonsense, often based on low n studies in a field that's ripe with uncertainty. WP:WHYMEDRS explains this need pretty well. I can't say I could come up with anything remotely similar at a putative WP:WHYSCIRS. Not saying it can't be done/argued, just that for now, I don't see it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely not a high-priority thing like it is in health and medicine. One reason why I didn't want to just clone WP:MEDRS is because the situations aren't exactly parallel; the undesirable sources are typically more mediocre than actively harmful to human well-being. Mostly I've been thinking back over incidents where things got hyped up because a press release said it was the most amazing discovery ever, or a random website got used as a source when perfectly good textbooks covered the topic in depth, or something fringe-y was cited to a journal that looked respectable but wasn't, etc. And there are things that the community has apparently decided without much fuss but which aren't written in one place, like MathWorld not being a dependable source for names. Setting all that out seemed worth doing. XOR'easter (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)