User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/February
 | 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. |
Speedy deletion declined: EditMe
Hello Headbomb. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of EditMe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previous revisions contain sufficient claims of significance, such as reviews in PC Magazine. Thank you. SoWhy 09:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, weird. Didn't know old revisions mattered, but I suppose I didn't check either. Anyway, prodded instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS edit
I miswrote the edit comment: rather than per talk page, this was per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Does_Wikipedia_have_a_definition_for_what_constitutes_a_"reliable_source"? It seems to be the "definition" asked for. Perhaps you have a better one? --GRuban (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
PNAS Open Access policy
Hello, I see that you edited the PNAS wikipedia page to show that the journal is delayed open access only, but that is not correct. Here is a page that describes the different access options. The journal is completely open access in several countries, and authors can also pay to make their articles open access: https://www.pnas.org/page/subscriptions/open-access — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smohin (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- And I see you still haven't declared your conflict of interest... WP:PAID is not optional, you will get blocked if you continue to edit out of compliance with policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Smohin: the new user page is a good step, but you still must include the {{Paid}} template on your user page. The WP:JWG#COI guide has details on how to do that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hmains Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Judgement call
Hi!
Do you think there should be a page for the term "Crimmigration"? It has its own sub section on the US immigration page, but I'm not sure when something is big enough to spin off into its own article. Looking for some insight and you've been doing this for a while. Thoughts? Rjkdavin (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Rjkdavin: Not sure why you're asking me, or what page you're talking about, but in my opinion no, there's likely not enough to warrant its own article. It might be worth an entry at wiktionary however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
citeseerx
Can you weigh in at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX_copyrights_and_linking AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Appreciation
Thank you for your help on the humour article for the next Signpost. Ya didn't have to do it but you did. I have to warn you that there weas criticism of my work in three different venues: Wikipedia facebook page, libraries group in a another forum and in my latest ANI appearance. I hope you are up-to-it. I should have told you before now but you look like a person who is able to 'keep' she-he-they, gender-less and under control. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 16:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Bookshelf
Template:Bookshelf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam, I think the body of https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/cardiogenic-shock is in the public domain. What do you think about? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm of no real opinion here. I put the copy violation blank to prevent deletion and allow investigation. If there's no copyright violation, remove it. You can also ask on the talk page of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. User:Doc James has done it. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 07:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Since when is WOS not selective?
You asked that here. The answer is simple: since "inclusion in WoS" in this case only means that it is included in ESCI (which even contains some predatory journals)... --Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: [1] Seems you're right. It's in the Philosopher's Index though, but I don't know how selective that is. Feel free to AFD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- That index isn't very selective either, far as I can tell. I'll take it to AfD, but PROD would have saved time. --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)