User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2021/February

Carnets de Géologie VERSUS Carnets Geol.

I am not familiar with Wikipedia; Apologies in adavance. I am not a native Enbglish speaker either.

The journal "Carnets Geol." that I publish on behalf of the "Association Carnets de Géologie" was once (BEFORE 2014) called "Carnets de Géologie - Notebooks on Geology"

BECAUSE there were many "qui pro quo" with the title "Carnets de Géologie" (association, editing house, and journal), and ALSO BECAUSE there were problems with the diacritic signs (é) in 2014 we decided to change the title to "Carnets Geol." since 2014, I am desperately fighting to get people using the new title

Here is a link to the ISSN portal: https://portal.issn.org/resource/issn/1634-0744

Title proper: Carnets de géologie.

Abbreviated key-title: Carnets géol.

Parallel title: Notebooks on geology

Other variant title: Carnets Geol. <<<<< THIS LINE INDICATES THE CURRENT TITLE!

Here is a link to the BNF portal (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, where the title was originally registered): https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb38923275m

Auteur(s) : Carnets de géologie (Brest). Auteur du texte Voir les notices liées en tant qu'auteur Titre clé : Carnets de géologie

Titre(s) : Carnets de géologie [Ressource électronique] / Association Carnets de géologie ; dir. publ. Nadine Roulance

Mise(s) à jour du titre :

Carnets géol. / Association Carnets de géologie ; [directeur de publication Bruno Granier] [2014-] <<<<< THIS LINE INDICATE THE CURRENT EDITOR IN CHIEF (FROM 2014 to -) /// THERE IS STILL A TYPOGRAPHIC MISTAKE WITH THE e of Geol.

Variante(s) historique(s) du titre :

- Carnets Geol., 2014- <<<<< THIS LINE INDICATES THE CURRENT TITLE (FROM 2014 to -)

Thank you for updating/correcting the relevant pages!

My changes are not accepted as "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject".

Yours sincerely, Bruno Granier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Granier (talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bruno Granier: Bonjour Bruno, j'ai bougé l'article au nouveau titre de la publication. Normallement, sur le Wikipédia anglophone, on nomme la page d'après le nom usuel des choses, mais si le journal s'est renommé, le nouveau nom usuel est le nom officiel. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Voir aussi WP:JWG, c'est en anglais, mais ça explique ce qui est le contenu désiré ('encyclopédique') vs le contenu non-désiré (promotionel/sans pertinence). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ORCID

My edits were well intented to make the article more readable and to make the concept and adoption of ORCID and the ORCID iD more graspable. I did not spam. I tried to make small edits to make my changes understable. Is such editing understood as spamming? Thanks --Brevity (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Brevity: This was the unintentional effect of using WP:TWINKLE a bit less carefully than I should have. I reverted to a prior version because there was refspamming done here. That's the only edit I meant to undo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Brevity: should be better now. Again, with apologies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I did not investigate those refs yet; thanks for restoring my edits. Cheers --Brevity (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Bealle's list and Questionable journals list

Hi Headbomb,

I am still having a bit of difficulty with high impact journals that turn out to be predatory or hijacked. Specifically high end publications with heavy conflicts of interest/outside funding issues -- trying to avoid the MDPI, Hindawi, Frontiers type issues that keep sneaking back into articles.

Are our questionable journal lists and Bealle's the best we have at ferreting these issues out? I'm posting this question on Doc James and Zefr's talk pages as well.

Thanks, I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@I enjoy sandwiches: There's also WP:UPSD Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You rock. I'm going to try and write one of these for general usage on Chrome that incorporates impact factors and H-indices as well. Sincere thanks. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Einstein–De Haas

In spite of all, it is still incorrect. See Van (Dutch)#Collation and capitalisation. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 17:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

We follow WP:COMMONNAME, and in English, Einstein–de Hass is uncapitalized. You can make a move request if you want. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Identifying retracted papers

Hi Headbomb, is there any method to automatically identify citations to retracted papers, ideally something like the UPSD? It occurred to me since I was recently using the Retraction Watch search interface and I noticed that they say the full database can be obtained on request. I see they also have separate categories for Corrections and Expressions of Concern, which I imagine might not be detected by examining only the original citation. If this doesn't already exist, I'd like to propose it as a possible project for you or any of your talk page watchers who may be interested. :-) Sunrise (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sunrise: You can check User:RetractionBot and ping its operator Samwalton9 (talk · contribs) about its current status. It was operating for a while, but I haven't followed its latest developpements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm surprised how few occurrences there are - we might be doing better than the scientific literature, given what I've heard about continued citation of retracted papers. Sam, is there a reason that the bot hasn't been running recently? I also see that its database is much smaller than RW's (which I assume is due to a difference with Crossref), so perhaps an expansion could be considered if any/all of those entries represent retracted papers that Crossref doesn't find. Sunrise (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

On Sockpuppet investigations/SevenSpheresCelestia

Hello, I'm aware of an investigation being conducted on that editor at the moment. I have realized you commented that it was a bad faith report. I just wanted to let you know that I don't really think Kepler-1229b has bad intentions. We usually create and edit pages about exoplanetology and we have seen possible suspicius activity from SevenSpheresCelestia. He might not be a sockpuppet (the administrators will make their conclusions - although I'm not sure how effective a CheckUser can be because some IP's are continually changing), but he and his friend (as he admitted) appear almost always in the same debates-reverts, which, I'm going to be honest, it seems suspicious about coordinating an effort to change the outcome of a debate-edit. It's just a possibility. I'm not saying that happened. The Administration will comment on that. We are in Wikipedia just to help it grow, we don't want any trouble; I certainly hate arguments. Everything started because SevenSpheresCelestia wanted 4 pages to be closed (3 of which were closed with consensus - including me, and no consensus was reached to close a 4th one - but it appears that he still wanted the debate closed as if consensus about closing the page was reached). I believe debate in Wikipedia is healthy. And if consensus is not reached, the best possibility imo is to close the debate as consensus reached in the majority of the page mergers except the one where consensus was not reached (especially after many editors spent much time working on that page). In my personal opinion this is respect to other editor's work. I would never attempt to merge (close) a page where many people has worked on, and that causes no harm to exist (especially when it exists in all Wikipedia languages). In any case, I respect your opinion and I thank you for your great contributions to Wikipedia. I hope and wish we continue working together hand by hand in the future. Best. ExoEditor 16:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There is zero suspicious activity" from SevenSpheresCelestia going on, and that you keep pretending otherwise just shows how entrenched in WP:BATTLEGROUND you are. Drop the stick. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Bot run

Actually, we already can run as many as we want, but we shouldn't advertise it... Abductive (reasoning) 06:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)