User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2022/July

Please see new draft your Feedback, Corrections are really appreciated

Mr. HEADBOMB please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Athens_Institute_for_Education_and_Research_ATINER UniversityRecords (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker here) Just FYI, the original draft still exists, and I've now PRODed the new draft due to it being an obvious duplicate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You still aren't address the core issue of meeting notability guidelines. Unless you do so, your drafts will never be accepted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Frontiers Reference

Dear Mr. Headbomb, you just removed a statement from the Frontiers article with the comment that the respective information is not in the source. This is unfortunately not correct. Please check Figure 2 and the caption in the linked article. BigAndi (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@BigAndi: the source does not back the chain of causality you implied. The source backs two independent statement: a) Beall's list closed in 2017; b) Beall was pressured by legal threats and was criticized for a lack of transparency. The source does not back that a) happened because of b). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevant to this conversation, see: https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/18/frontiers-vanquishers-of-beall-publishers-of-bunk/

"Frontiers first tried it nicely with Beall, when the Chief Executive Officer Frederick Fenter and journal manager Mirjam Curno (who is also trustee at Committee for Publication Ethics, COPE, read here) visited the librarian before Christmas 2016 in Denver (see my report here). Since Beall still did not remove Frontiers from his list, Fenter rallied its loyal journal editors and started together with them in August 2016 a campaign against Beall, demanding that his university punishes the librarian or at least forces him to remove Frontiers from his private list (read here). That information on my site served as (utterly uncredited) template for the aforementioned Chronicle of Higher Education article (as its author Paul Basken admitted to me, but his editor Brock Read denied). Basken then contacted Beall, who then also revealed to him that in January 2016 the University of Colorado Denver caved in to Frontiers demands and opened a misconduct case against its librarian. At this point, Beall decided to delete his list and save his job. An academic disagreement was resolved in a honed and cherished academic tradition: with a call to the employer and a threat of sacking."

And see: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20170920150122306#:~:text=In%20October%202015%2C%20Beall%20announced,peer%20reviews%20at%20Frontiers%20journals.

"Roughly a year later, after continued pressure, the university accepted Frontiers’ demand and opened a research misconduct case against the librarian. Beall responded almost immediately by killing his list."

There is of course controversy around the veracity of Beall's claims that his library put undue pressure on him (in another article cited in Frontiers Wiki article iirc?. It's written by Beall's old boss). And even these quotes are somewhat indirect (though more direct than the Nature article). But @BigAndi: you may be able to find additional sources that better support that claim. Ideally avoiding blogs like Leonid Schneider's here (quote 1), though arguments of WP:RS could be made if a clear case is defined... Cheers -- --Crawdaunt (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems the sources more or less confirm this. Should we then rephrase the sentence that I suggested adding to summarise the facts? It does not necessarily draw a connection, but the article that I tried to cite on the Frontiers Wiki Page presents both of the facts that 1) Beall's decision caused a significant backlash (by Frontiers but also backed by other researchers) and 2) The list was discontinued in 2017. I think the presentation of these facts alone speaks for itself.

BigAndi (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that this is all already mentionned in Frontiers_Media#Inclusion_in_Beall's_list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Predatory source

Hello. Thank you for the recent edit on this Amhara genocide article. The specific Journal you identified is a tricky one to find using the "search" option on the Journal main page. It only comes up with a manual search using the Issues/Volume/Year and going through the pages for that specific publishing year. I was able to identify the exact URL and thinking to update the DOI link which I previously added to the article: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2544650, with this URL: https://old.rrjournals.com/past-issue/the-1976-tplf-manifesto-and-political-instability-in-amhara-region-ethiopia/. The latter directly takes the reader to the source. Please let me know if this is still a concern. I would appreciate it. Thank you Petra0922 (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Petra0922: Research Reviews etc... are a subsidiary of AkiNik Publications, a well known predatory publisher. It also has a nonsense title, and is lying about being in the DOAJ database. Finding a different URL for the same article doesn't change that this is an unreliable source which should not be cited on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Got it. There are other reliable references that I can cite to support the content. Thank you for the feedback and edit. Petra0922 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I intrude on this conversation, but the topic is the same. I noticed this edit of yours, which I basically approve of. My doubt is that Cambridge Scholars Publishing appears in hundreds of sources in different articles; does this mean that all these sources should be removed too? Lone-078 (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

are you sure Cambridge Scholars Publishing is predatory?? Rjensen (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Positive. It's a garbage source, without any sort of reviewing going on. It's a vanity press. See Cambridge Scholars Publishing. I've only removed CSP sources where other reliable sources were present for now, but the problem is very widespread indeed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I see you don't like Hōryūji Reconsidered, which has contributions by John M. Rosenfield, Michael Como, Lori Meeks, J. Edward Kidder, et al. Indeed, if you look at the academic profile of Lori Meeks, she includes an image of the very book in question amongst her book chapters... Oh, and there's this review in Journal of Japanese Studies... Any objections to me re-adding, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Well that review does change things a bit. CSP is a vanity press, so we shouldn't normally cite it... but as WP:VANPRED explains, when we have external reviews evaluating the work positively, it's different. No objection to reinstating it, but I'd ask that you add a comment in the citation with a link to JSTOR 20752540 so that others also know that it's OK source despite the publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Might it be better if you were too clean up your own mess, as it were, rather than taking up more of my time? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You asked me if I'd object to you re-adding it. You have your answer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I shall now ask, please could you clean up your own mess, as it were, thus also showing a modicum of repentance for your assumption of dopey and/or nefarious editing practices on the part of your colleagues and of contrition for taking up my time, thank you; you may find if there's a friction cost in overhasty editing etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no 'mess'. Now if you have nothing productive to say, kindly move on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone (not me) started a thread about you at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problematic mass removal of sources by Headbomb. Thank you.

I didn't see a notice, so I'm posting this. If someone already notified you, please remove this message. Thanks! weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I know, it's nonsense and fully intend to ignore it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry for not checking the page history. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 05:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI: UPSD flags OCLC as a potentially unreliable source

I mentioned UPSD on the Citation Style 1 talk page, in the topic, Add a brief note regarding Worldcat (OCLC) as a reliable source. I'm letting you know in the hopes that you'll take a look and make sure that I explained things accurately. Plus, I'm sure you can contribute valuable insights to the discussion. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Nova Scotia

I unfortunately had no access to internet/a computer for the last little while, and as such, the dispute was closed. I think you see clearly the need for such content to be highly visible on the Nova Scotia page, but I am fighting a losing battle against Moxy (who has a long history of erasing Indigenous content from Wikipedia in favour of euro-centricism). I would really, really appreciate it if you were to assist in whatever way possible! Danachos (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Miscapitalization vs. other capitalization

Hi Headbomb! Could you explain why you made this edit? Wired's house style is to render its name in all-caps, and even though that's not the style we use on Wikipedia, it's not exactly wrong as would be implied by labeling it a miscapitalization, so I thought it better to use {{R from other capitalization}} instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm.. you're right that this is kind of a stylistic issue... but at the same time, we cite it as Wired, and not WIRED... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to make a mass-change here, I'd prefer to see some affirmative consensus or relevant guidance about how this should be handled. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

No mass changes planned for now, but this is prep work for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the main distinction in practical terms between the two tags is that {{r from miscapitalization}} encourages editors to change incoming links, whereas {{r from other capitalization}} does not. So perhaps miscapitalization is the correct approach. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Recognized content

Thank you for the clarification on that page; you used {{db-move}}, which seemed to indicate that Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/JL-Bot needed to be moved, not that it was a duplicate page that was no longer necessary. That was my rationale for declining the G6 originally. Primefac (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought I had explained it in the rationale the first time, but no matter. Everything got sorted out in the end (and it did need moving). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Manual edits: great; bot: catastrophy

Hy Headbomb. Please check here my appeal to reversing the edits done by the bot you suggested. As opposed to the excellent edits you did by hand for instance [here], that bot is a real danger to a lot of refs' usefulness. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I already replied there, and stop it with drama. There is a minor bug, that will get fixed shortly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The bot page says 2 ppl are in charge, who might not react, or only after a long time. Careful how you write. "Drama"? That's a touch too personal. "Minor"? The bot might be damaging a lot of pages, in that one article the changes led to two cases of "failed verification", and many ppl don't bother to reverse their faults, let alone bots' failures, so clear words sometimes help. I wrote here after getting an email, I don't have a secretary to check everywhere first. Easy to fix? I hope so, I don't know and I hope you do. Arminden (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Using unreliable.js in other scripts

Hi! I was hoping to use the data in unreliable.js in other scripts. I can think of a couple ways to do that. The method with the least change is to just have unreliable.js stash its "rules" list in a global variable like window.unreliableBuiltinRules (like the existing window.unreliableCustomRules variable). Alternatively, the list could also be moved out into a separate .json file. Or we could do something else. I would be happy to send in patches for either option or to make the edits myself. Thoughts would be appreciated. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I'd love to have a JSON file, but making that JSON file is a major headache. And would possibly balloon to a several megabytes file. You're welcomed to take a shot at it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Or any other ways of externalizing the rules if JSON isn't viable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the green light. I've made a JSON file at User:Enterprisey/TESTING-unreliable.json and a new version of the script that uses the JSON file at User:Enterprisey/unreliable.js. Let me know what you think! Enterprisey (talk!) 03:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll take a look in more details this week. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but any updates on this? Enterprisey (talk!) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

None so far, I got distracted by other projects (like the new WP:JCW/DIACRITICS and a bunch of The Foobar → Foobar redirects). I haven't forgotten about it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Maynooth Philosophical Papers

Hello! I have noticed that you have deleted much of the entry on the philosophy journal Maynooth Philosophical Papers. You characterize quotations from the journal's founding editor as "undue" and "puffery." Especially (but not only) in the case of the section on the special issue, it is not clear to me why a quotation that illustrates the content of a journal should be classified in this manner. The result of your cutting is that nothing but a stump of an entry remains. As a consequence, the reader now learns very little about what the journal actually is. So, I would like to suggest that you restore the deleted material. Many thanks. Wissembourg (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

See WP:JWG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Signpost

Thanks for the copyedits! I've done what I can. Think Opinion could use a second set of eyes - it's still a bit on the rough side, though it's also a bit unfinished - and I can't copyedit Gallery. Everything's looking a lot better now than yesterday. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Writing definitely is harder than copyediting, you've done the big chunk! I'm just polishing. I hope you don't mind the new links on the image research piece instead of the raw URLs. 02:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Think they're much better, honestly. I kind of wrote it a bit quickly, if I'm honest. Probably could have covered more examples, but I had a good one in front of me and wanted to get it down while I still knew the whole path. Like File:The_Burning_of_the_USS_Missouri_in_Gibraltar.jpg. Full of bad information. Problem solved by actually reading all the text on the image, which detailed everything I needed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think one clear example dealt with thoughtful is better than half a dozen glossed over. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably true! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way

If you feel like getting an article out of the way, I'm just waiting to see if any FAs, FLs, or FTs pass today before closing next issue's featured content. I'd imagine it'll be ready for copyediting pretty soon after - or possibly slightly before - this issue publishes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 03:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"An article out of the way"? I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I'm keeping an eye on the newsroom and the next issue. It's been a few years since I've gotten involved with the Signpost, so I'm touching a bit of everything and polishing what I can find here and there. Mostly focusing on the low-hanging fruits for now and copyediting as needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically, I might have an article ready to copyedit 1 August, with 30 days before publication, because I've been writing the Featured content as it passes. I... tend not to like having deadlines looming over me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 04:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Well I guess I'll see when it's up. Just mark it as ready for copyedit and I'll get to it eventually, unless someone else gets to it first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)