User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/October

HEALPix

hi Headbomb - I put a COI warning in my recent edit at HEALPix - so feel free to switch the discussion to Talk:HEALPix if you think my ref edits are a problem. Boud (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Update your UCB script for hashtags

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2173 You have your own, if you change your via= AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: what do I need to change it to? via=User%3AHeadbomb%2Fcitations.js? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Change via=toolbar to via=Headbomb — Preceding unsigned comment added by AManWithNoPlan (talk • contribs)

Done, although having a mask is a very sub-optimal/semantically awful way of doing things, since I'm not doing this via 'Headbomb', but rather via 'User:Headbomb/citations.js' and you can't declare things like via=Category:CS1 errors: DOI, via={{cite arXiv}}, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also did you mean via=Headbomb or edit=Headbomb? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oooops. edit, not via. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

to talk

1. It is a title, not a sentence 2. it is typographically sound 3. you could have gone to talk too 4. once disputed, one should not discuss through editsummary

-DePiep (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please (and strongly advised) you revert until talk concludes. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I took it to talk, but I will not revert myself, because you are wrong about this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

all OK?

Boy, Sir, everything fine? You're so verbally/editingly aggressive. Anything wrong, I can do for you? DePiep (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You can retract your condescending remarks and bad faith attacks on me, for one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

editwarring

Hi. It was me who designed the category and its purpose. So one can leave it up to me to decide on required content. At least you could have questioned my purpose. (And once more you are imposing a maintenance process without being involved in the maintenance). -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So please put those two pages in the state I brought them. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. And as for putting them back in Category:Isotope content page, the category is explicitly for content pages (Deuterium, Tritium), not for redirects (Hydrogen-1, Hydrogen-2). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No not owning, it is the way this maintenance thing is designed to be. You did not ask clarification, nor strart any talk at all. Another case in which you obviously want to enforce/deny a maintenance sedtup in a topic you are not involved in (i.e., outsider). Also note that you are trespassing WP:3RR.

(NB the answer to the question you still have not asked is: Hydrogen-1, Hydrogen-2 are standard isotope-names and these isotpes have a content page). -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The content pages are Deuterium and Tritium, take it to the CFD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Oleg Bukhtoyarov

Hi Headbomb... Thank you for reviewing my draft page Draft:Oleg Bukhtoyarov. He is well known scientist in Russia, but in order to publish his concepts in English he had to use some unreliable sources along with pear reviewed ones. I edited source list and left links to only pear reviewed magazines. I would appreciate if you will take a look at the draft again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by And21kovalev (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Asking your opinion on this dispute

I see you're a prolific and experienced editor here. Hence why I'd like to ask your opinion on this dispute. — Guarapiranga (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem edit

Hello, there is a problem with this edit. It adds a date parameter which is different to the year parameter causing a cite date error. Keith D (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Keith D: feel free to fix it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsure exactly what to do with that one so have left for now. Keith D (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow the jstor link, it'll tell you what the valid date is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. That citation did not match the source well at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Many thanks for fixing. Keith D (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Giant viruses

I concur that the source for the observation of putative Giant Viruses infecting Chaetognaths is not a reputable peer-reviewed journal. However, the observation is well-documented and intriguing for someone that works on Giant Viruses (me). Would you accept the wording, "Based on observations it has been hypothesized based on electron micrographs that large spindle-shaped structures observed in chaetognaths (marine invertebrates) are giant viruses...". I don't see any harm, and some benefit to making others aware of the observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curt99 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as 1) you have a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for the statement 2) that it's an accurate reflection of what the source says, then I don't have any real opinion on how it's best to phrase this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

-- the article is unrelated to medicine so WP:MEDRS isn't particularly relevant. The observations are solid, but the conclusion that these are viruses based on the evidence is not; hence, removal of the content seems appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curt99 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Curt99: btw, you should fix your signature. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Bot to deduplicate/reorganize references?

Hello You seem very experienced with bots and automation of citations, so I've figured I might ask you something I've been looking for a long time I often find myself having to do 3 time consuming tasks with references: 1. deduplicating when the same reference is defined multiple times, but sometimes with no html name tag, 2. moving the first definition of a ref to the top section (outside of lede), 3. reorder refs so that they display in sequentially increasing order, eg [1][2][3] instead of [3][1][2]. Maybe you happen to know of such a tool? Thank you in advance! --Signimu (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: Try WP:AWB (and enable genfixes), it does a lot of that. It won't order refs, although it used to in the past. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll try that Have a nice day! --Signimu (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Choline review

Hello! Would you like to review this choline draft article and suggest/make improvements to it? I was thinking that this draft could replace the current choline article. See also the talk page, if you are interested. 5-HT2AR (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@5-HT2AR: I am untrained in both chemistry and nutrition. I would try your luck at either WP:CHEM or WP:MED if I were you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ISO-4 abbreviation language rules

Any comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#ISO-4 abbreviation language rules? I wanna make sure I'm not missing something before I start fixing that. Sorry for pushing the opposite interpretation before. Tokenzero (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I added to the Living Educational Theory Page - Did I do this correctly?

Hope all is well. You are obviously are an expert on creating and editing high quality work. Need your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.173.49 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)