User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2015/September

Translations of journal titles

A parameter is provided explicitly for translations of journal titles, which are perfectly respectable entities. I'm actually astonished that an experienced editor with a user page all about good behaviour should behave in such a way, I hope you have a more restful day from now forwards. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No parameter is provided for the translation of journal titles, |trans_title= is the for the translation of the article title. Read the {{cite journal}} documentation. As for the 'behaviour', read Insectes Sociaux and [1] and doi:10.1007/s00040-010-0093-2. What do you see there? Insectes Sociaux. That's the title of the journal, and it translates to Social Insects. You're the one reverting in ignorance. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, not quite sure what the tone of my previous posts conveys, but want to clarify I'm not pissed or mad or anything.. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

bibcode bot plain refs?

Hi, does the bibcode bot process plain ref links to adsabs.harvard.edu e.g. on HARPS-N by converting to cite templates & filling in? If yes could I feed you a list of up to ~300 articles to process? Or alternatively I could convert to cite templates for the bot to fill in after? Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rjwilmsi: Nope, it doesn't process plainlinks. It processes citation templates ({{cite journal}}, {{cite conference}}, {{citation}}, I think) with |arxiv=, |bibcode=, or |doi=. It also has some ability to 'construct' a bibcode from scratch if enough information is given (journal name, year, volume, page). It also tries to guess the correct author if a |last= is present, and if that doesn't work, it tries every A-Z possibility.

So doing a conversion of plainlinks to {{cite xxx}}/{{citation}} is best if you want bibcode bot's to work its magic. I'll just need a list of articles to process. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explanation. May get complaints if generate cite template with missing mandatory fields in the time between creation and bot expanding, so as adsabs provide good metadata I've written something myself. Rjwilmsi 10:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

SCImago ranking (and others)

The problem I have with these rankings is that few people actually use them. Whether we like it or not (personally, I don't), the IF remains the benchmark that everybody looks at. An additional issue is maintenance. It's already quite an effort to update IFs every year. In the case of Combinatorics, Probability and Computing it is conceivable (I have no idea how likely, but that's not the point), that at some future date it won't be "a first-quartile journal" any more. Who's going to check that? I'm not going to revert, it's sourced and all. Just wanted to signal the potential problem. I am gradually disengaging from the whole subject of academic journals, leaving even fewer people to maintain those articles. --Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I get the maintenance hassle, but since it was there before, and the statement is both dated and sourced, I don't see the point of removing it. I will be sad to see you disengage from academic journals. I know dealing with the drama isn't fun, but you were good at it (and at cleaning up after people, including me), and the project will feel the loss of one of its most prolific contributors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. We do not always agree, but working with you has always been professional and pleasant. I have not yet decided whether I'll be looking for a different subject matter or disengage completely. The journals space was mostly a calm backwater compared to other areas of WP, but every now and then you bump into some POV pushers that make life miserable for anybody else. And my repeated disagreements with Fgnievinski didn't help either. Not a major cause, but it pushed me towards this decision to get some distance. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A thing that might help might be to simply mixing editing and admin duties a bit less than what you've been doing in the last year or so. A sort of 'don't shit where you eat', if you will. I could never get involved in closing deletion discussions and the like because I'd rather be able to voice an opinion and let someone else take the flak for enforcing consensus / blocking / dealing with the general negativity of people throwing fits over their pet journals.

Consider taking a wikibreak, rather than a wikiretirement. I took a roughly one year hiatus once when I started this current job. I didn't have much time, so it's not like I took a break because of drama, but it did me a lot of good to break free of it for a while. You come back to the project with a rested mindset. It makes a lot of the drama seem fairly petty and inconsequential, and since you haven't kept up with anything, you just end up doing content work that you want to be doing. Creating articles and expanding them is a much more rewarding task than to deal with badly written non-notable cruft on some obscure humanities journal no one ever heard of.

The brain needs to focus on the good stuff every now and then, after all. Not only genes affect behaviour after all ;). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Good advice (and a true thing: genes' aren't all!) Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Public Health Reports

Harrias ^talk 15:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Question from NOVA Publishers

Good Afternoon or Good Evening Sir,

We are writing to you from Nova Science Publishers, Inc. and are wondering you why keep changing accurate, factual information on the Wikipedia account (today, such as in the case of our employees). If you are in New York, we would be happy to show you around since you do not seem to believe that these people work there. Alternatively, a fax from our accountant or Paychex company might be helpful. We thank you for noticing our company and are honored that you follow us. But we are not sure why you seem to have such deep, negative personal feelings towards us. Look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaNOVA (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, on this page, where is NOVA Publishers - http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/?

You linked this to our wikipedia site but NOVA is not on this list. Please let me know if we are missing something so we can forward the article to our lawyer. Thank you for bringing this article to our attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaNOVA (talk • contribs) 19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Again you state in the "Talk", that we do not have Vera Popovic or Cathy DeGregory as our heads of accounting and billing, but they are in fact the Managers of Accounting and Billing, which has grown over the years. They have their own department and employees. Additionally, they have worked there for over a decade in previous roles but that is their current role. Please let me know if you would like to come and visit and see for yourself. We would be glad to show you around to prove to you that your statements are completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaNOVA (talk • contribs) 19:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@WikipediaNOVA: I will point out Wikipedia has a policy on legal threats which you may want to review before continuing further. Additionally, if you have a problem with Beall's list, then you should take it with Jeffrey Beall, not Wikipedia. Also, the reference given is http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/05/26/watch-out-for-publishers-with-nova-in-their-name/, not http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/.

As for the second part, I'm not sure why you think I mention Vera Popovic or Cathy DeGregory, or to what 'talk' you are referring to because I have never heard of these people, and I don't see it on the talk page of Talk:Nova Science Publishers. The question is not whether or not these people exists and have these job titles, this is a matter of given due weight to said facts. Compare, for instance, with The Coca-Cola Company, a company much much bigger, with much vaster operations than Nova Publishers. They list 3 'key people', the Chairman & CEO, the Executive Vice President, and the Outside Director (unsure what that does exactly). What's not including is a breakdown of each individual department and manages within The Coca-Cola Company. Or if you want another publisher to compare to, see Reed Elsevier, which only includes the CEO and the Chairman. Simply put, no one care who's the head of accounting. This is not just true of Nova Science Publishers, but of pretty much any company out there, unless there's a some major financial scandal involving accounting.

I will also point out that it's painfully obvious that you have a conflict of interest, so I suggest you familiarize yourself with our policies on conflicts of interests before editing further.

Regards. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for your email message. I am familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies but I will review them again, per you suggestion.

However, the lowest rating possible among the "refereed book publications" ranking - can you please state where this is in the article?

With Reed Elsevier, yes, they only have CEO and Chairman. Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, nobody cares who is head of accounting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAdamSmith (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear sir, can you also please repost the article. It has been deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAdamSmith (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Merging to Wp:Women

Hi, thanks for doing the initial legwork. A big task, but one which can be achieved. The first step I think would be to leave a proposal notice to merge into a task force on each of the project talk pages. See how that goes. Some are largely inactive, those will be the first to be merged, and then we can chip away at the others. I don't think we need an RFC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

cite arxiv

This edit of your messed up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binary_star&type=revision&diff=680628504&oldid=680083499 Note the {{cite arxiv}} does not have authors, just author as a parameter. That template is a limited service template unfortunately. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium

Hi! I'd love to ask for your attention on the ununseptium article; it's currently a FAC, but few people have actually reviewed the article. You've been around with WP:Elements for a long time, and our attention would be highly appreciated, as the previous FAC has gained too little attention to even stand a chance to make it to the FA status; hope you can take part. Thanks--R8R (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

WISE 0535-7500 and Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects)

The standards outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO are what we go by to establish notability. You can create a 'genuine infobox' for any of the hundreds of trillions of stars and objects out there. That does not make them notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you really believe that, do you really believe that if you don't impose Notability standards on astronomical objects then Wikipedia will be flooded with pages about astronomical objects? I object to applying Notability standards to astronomical objects in principle, and I also and separately object to the particular Notability standards in that specific article. Explaining the "in particular" is easy, the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects) are based on popularity, the number of times the object appears in the popular or scientific press for example. Astronomy is not a popularity contest. Science is not a popularity contest. To explain why I object in principle is harder to explain. I am a Wikipedia user rather than an editor, I only edit or create Wikipedia articles when I find it to be absolutely necessary. Today, in response to the NASA announcement of hydrated perchlorates on Mars I looked up Atmosphere of Mars. This article doesn't have any information on the seasonal pressure variation of pressure, which is important because that seasonal pressure variation controls the seasonal appearance of water on the surface of Mars. FYI, the seasonal variation is 200 Pa (as measured by the MSL) with a minimum in early sping and maxima in early summer and early winter. Yesterday, I wanted to see what X-ray telescopes there were other than Astro-H so looked up X-ray telescope. This article doesn't even mention Astro-H at all, and has a pitifully small amount of real information about its predecessor Suzaku, so it is probably missing other X-ray telescopes as well. That's important. The day before yesterday I wanted to find a list of solar telescopes in space. There isn't a complete list anywhere on Wikipedia, such a list is deliberately excluded by Wikipedia pages List of space telescopes, List of solar telescopes, and the space probes in List_of_Solar_System_probes#Solar_probes miss the Solar Dynamics Observatory, Trace and Hinode for starters, as well as including a dozen or so spacecraft that are not solar telescopes. That's important. Do you see that pattern? What is important to a Wikipedia user is the lack of information in Wikipedia. I find important gaps in Wikipedia's information nearly every day. Having too much information in Wikipedia is never a problem. How many astronomers would I need to get on a petition to make you remove the Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects) page? More than the number of Wikipediholics who created it, certainly, but how many is that? As for WISE 0535-7500, the parallax of 250 mas was a dead give-away, wasn't it? A parallax of 250 mas makes it closer than all but four naked eye stars. That certainly suffices for importance. It's also the 3rd closest Y dwarf, may be the second nearest free planet, and may be the nearest astronomical object with surface conditions compatible with Life, as we know it on Earth, but that's just the icing on the cake. Mollwollfumble (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mollwollfumble: I'm simply telling you if you want to unredirect WISE <numbers>, you'll likely face someone that objects, and you'll have to justify un-redirection and why this article should be considered notable. WP:NASTRO is our guideline on astronomical objects. You can agree or disagree with it. You may even try to convince editors that the WP:NASTRO guideline needs to be updated and create a new consensus. But in my opinion, if this particular object doesn't meet the current WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG guidelines, then consensus will very likely be to keep it as a redirect. It certainly would be my position. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of indiscriminate information, and our business is not to duplicate galactic databases. Likewise, we're not in the business of predicting what may or may not be (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). What you do is up to you, but WISE <numbers> stands a much better chance of being accepted as notable enough for its own articles if you meet WP:NASTRO than if it doesn't. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)