User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/May

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Headbomb. 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.

Emily Temple-Wood

Obviously that's one of her works, but is it really notable enough for inclusion there alongside an academic work? Or would you like to add all of the works she's ever written online anywhere? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Everything of that nature would probably worth including yes. I don't see what the passage in Facebook nation is worthier of mention than that Signpost piece, especially given it's one of the most commented signpost articles ever. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If the Signpost piece is worthy of inclusion, why not every blog post she's ever written? Every lengthy quote she's given to news outlets? Etc. It just seems like undue emphasis to me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Per the lead "She is known for her efforts to counter the effects of gender bias on Wikipedia, particularly through creating articles about women scientists." The Signpost piece directly addressed those efforts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

journal dabs

Hi, I ran the journal dabs for (journal) using that 2010 list and my November 2015 database dump. Found about 20 pages only, after excluding pages that are either just redirects (Foo to Foo (journal)) or are the actual page now (with infobox journal), have corrected those. Do you have a current list of the (journal) and (magazine) pages so I can try again? Rjwilmsi 07:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rjwilmsi: I'll build a list when the latest dump is out, so in the next few days if not tonight. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the list of titles I came up with, based on this dump:

@Rjwilmsi: going to ping you in case this gets lost in your watchlist. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, using Nov 2015 dump I found just under 1000 matches after removing some ambiguous entries from the list (two periodicals with same name), and after further removing entries where the page was already redirecting, made about 500 edits I think to clean up what I found (unpiped links in journal param or its aliases). Rjwilmsi 17:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electromagnetic induction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pearson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

API change will break your bot

Hey Headbomb,

I noticed that Bibcode Bot has been using http:// to access the API, rather than https:// This is going to break soon, because of changes to the API. You can find more information in this e-mail message. If you need help updating your code to use https:// , then you might be able to find some help at w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard or on the mailing list. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll update things accordingly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Or not. Converting seems beyond my coding skills. This might be the death of Bibcode bot, sadly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Naa, this is such a ubiquitous change that someone in the bot community is bound to have a similar (or exactly the same) problem and/or already resolved it, if not now then after they notice their broken bot come mid-June. I'm an optimist, though... ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope so. I'm hearing that there are many different ways for this to be a problem, so it's possible that we will have 60 bots needing updates and need 70 different fixes. Headbomb, thanks for posting to BOTN; I hope that someone knowledgeable is able to help you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to fix this yet? (Please {{ping}} me; I'm a little scattered this week, and I don't want to miss your reply.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)