User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/September

You seem like a reasonable guy

Bifurcation has been around for awhile (Henri Poincaré,1885). Lehto is the first I am aware of that has brought it down into the Planck scale. So excuse my flimsy research, but I think this guys work needs to be noted. Period doubling bifurcation is an important field within everything from particle physics to astrophysics and cosmology. It'll be tied closely with the work with the Fourier transform so such an article will be helpful to many people struggling within some of this ideation. BruceCamber (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Bruce Camber on Ari Lehto created just recently.

You recent edits

None of your edits on Katherine's talk page actually address my question. I have therefore collapsed the digression. Katherine has in the last couple of days assured me she will answer my question as soon as she is able, I suggest you allow her to do that. It is a question that needs a Foundation answer. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Your question is based on a flawed premise. The WMF hosted a research tool while it was being developed. Developpment was abandoned, either because improving it to the point of usefulness was too hard/not worth resources, or because people lost interest in it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My question is why, once abandoned, was it still hosted and nobody told what the flaws were for another two years? It continued to be hosted and referenced from other projects, with no indication that its results were wildly unreliable and obnoxious. You can't answer that question, Katherine can and has said she will. Your contributions are not helping. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Likely the same reason any page on Wikipedia/any other website can become outdated at any point. People keep hosting things that are past their prime and just don't bother or remember to update things because they have moved on to other subjects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi - what's wrong with these sources? Did you try to find other supporting sources, or merely just delete the text cited to it as well? ɱ (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Those two are predatory journals published by OMICS and subdivisions like iMedPub. Those are not reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you respond to my second question here? ɱ (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Predatory journals

Hi Headbomb, I reverted your edit on Moringa oleifera. I hadn't heard the term "predatory journals" before and because your edit summary didn't include any links, I was none the wiser. Fortunately User:Zefr explained on my talk page and pointed me to WP:SOURCEWATCH, which is very useful. I went through the listed sources, and couldn't find the Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. Perhaps I missed it? In general I believe that Wiley-Blackwell are regarded as a decent publisher of journals. Can you point me to the rationale for considering the Journal of Food Processing and Preservation as predatory? Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Mirror Cracked: A predatory journal is an unreliable source. Search for 'International Research Journals', the journal's publisher, in https://beallslist.weebly.com/. Keep in mind that the journal is African Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, and not the Wiley-Blackwell Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's the problem - the DOI in the original citation was incorrect and indeed pointed to the African Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, but the paper cited did appear in Wiley's Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, see [1]. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, well if the correct citation is to the Wiley-Blackwell journal, then there's no issue as long as the DOI is updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've updated it to point to the Wiley paper. Sorry for the confusion! The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, what's important is that citation now points to the correct/legit paper. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Recruiting

Hi, Headbomb - can I recruit you to help develop our pages for WP:WikiProject Dogs? RexxS helped me with the carousel on the infobox but what I was hoping we could do is something along the line of the outstanding pages of Project Med so that we have a place for AfDs, etc. separate from general discussion on the TP. I'm not familiar with the newsletter that was once active so any help there would be appreciated. Oh, and thank you for all the wonderful work you do on WP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Citations thanks

Thank you Headbomb for fixing the citations (here there and everywhere). I've been using Wiki Text editor and it just does not handle the citations well (unless of course I'm the erroneous human)...So have abandoned that mode and hopefully shall lessen your workload. Many thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure where exactly I fixed something (I fix a lot), but you might want to make use of the WP:Citation expander instead of the text editor. It lets you do cleanup pretty easily (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reference organizer script

Awesome job on 2I/Borisov, thanks! I was just thinking of doing it manually. Turns out, there's a script for that. Sometimes it pays off to be a procrastinator One thing I would like the script to do, though, is to align the "=" characters, like so:

<ref name="CBAT4670">
{{cite web
 |title      = IAU Electronic Telegram No. 4670
 |publisher  = Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
 |url        = https://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/cbet/2019/4670.html
 |url-status = live
 |accessdate = 2019-09-25
}}</ref>

I think it's much easier to spot an occasional typo this way. What do you think? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow: Doesn't make much of a difference to me either way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)