User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2023/January

Happy New Year, Headbomb!

Happy New Year!

Headbomb,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Luigi Calabresi

Greetings. I just happened to notice that, back in July 2022 and on the basis that it's "predatory publishing", you removed a reference I'd added to the article Luigi Calabresi. Since the major attribute of predatory publishers is charging publication fees to authors, I re-checked the source. The Open Journal of Social Sciences states here that "there are no publication fees (article processing charges or APCs) to publish with this journal." It is owned by DOAJ, or Directory of Open Access Journals, which, in turn, states is an "independent, non-profit organisation managed by Infrastructure Services for Open Access C.I.C. or IS4OA, a community interest company." Are you certain they are predatory publishers? -The Gnome (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Gnome: 100% certain. See SCIRP, which publishes the Open Journal of Social Sciences. Your DOAJ link, btw, is for a different journal (Journal of Social Sciences), published by the Technical University of Moldova. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the source belongs to the category of predatory publishers. I'll contact directly the author of the paper, a professor at the Roma Tre University, to see if they have published it elsewhere. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Flavour quantum numbers

I felt that saying, "and so forth" left out the top and bottom quarks, so I just wanted to list all the known quarks. You say, "The quantum numbers aren't up down strange, etc.", but the article includes "charm" as a "quantum number". Would it be permissible if I changed my statement to "The other set is the flavor quantum states..."? Another alternative would be to say "upness, downness. strangeness, charmness, topness, bottomness".

I removed the sentence including "are insensitive to these quantum numbers," because the large size of the spin-spin interaction makes hadron energy quite sensitive to the quantum states, as evidenced by the large mass differences between hadrons in the same multiplet. I don't see how that sentence could be defended.

What are your thoughts on these two cases? Alfa137 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Upness and downness aren't used as quantum numbers. The flavour quantum numbers are isospin, strangeness, charm, beauty/bottomness, truth/topness. As far as the statement "are insensitive to these quantum numbers," goes, it applies to strong interactions, which is flavour independent, not mass which is flavour dependent. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

1. How do up and down differ from strange, charm, top, bottom as flavors? I agree that "quantum number" is not a good terminology for any of them, which is why I suggested "quantum state". My main point was to replace "and so forth" with the actual names.

2. Quark interactions include the spin-spin force, which is flavor dependent. This affects all hadron properties. Alfa137 (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You've returned

One minute after my edit and not a minute later.[1][2] What could it be this time?[3] My usual edits and a few that are not so. I wonder what the displeasure might be. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have nothing productive to say, go away. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Drive by reverts

re your reverts [4] [5]: stop it. It was me who created that maintenance category and its criteria. So one can assume that I know what it is about. There is no reason to lecture me in the area I am editing in. Proof in point: while I am working in that area recently, I actually need and expect those pages to be in there. That is: they explicitly and usefuly belong in there. Since you have no beef in this maintenance area, nor intrinsic arguments, this is just drive-by wikilawyering (or idontlikethat, or ididnothearthat if you like). So I strongly propose you revert. DePiep (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No one cares that you created the categories, you do not WP:OWN them. These categories are explicitly for content (i.e. non-redirect) pages, and these two are redirect pages. They do not belong in the category. If you need some specific list of pages, keep it in a .txt file. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Not "explicitly". If you misunderstood my writing, that ask for clarification and cooperate to flesh it out. Also, the XfD link you gave is not about this topic. I note that, again, instead you are lecturing me on the category + critaria I created. DePiep (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A criteria that the community rejected. If you want to change the scope of the category, start a WP:CFD and gain consensus for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Where and how was it rejected? Not in the 2019 link you provided. Didn't you read it? Not even its conclusion? DePiep (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus was for the category to contain content pages, and to be populate through the infobox. You're adding hard-coded categories to non-content pages, which directly goes against that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Consensus says to populate automated (and I agreed with that). The rest is your deranged extrapolation. DePiep (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, and creating a category & then explain its creatinos intention is not "OWNing". Again, you are resorting to PA accusations without addressing the content issues I wrote. DePiep (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• FYI. Here someone explicitly knows & acknowledges that it is about "This category lists pages of isotopes in mainspace that are articles not redirects. Thesre [sic] are some 3300 isotopes, most of them are redirects". FYI: Those excluded "redirects" refer to for example Fluorine-19 (R). To spell it out: hydrogen-2 is an isotope, it is a formally correct name, and it has a dedicated article at enwiki. -DePiep (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  It is also a redirect. i.e. not content. The content page is deuterium. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  You're going back to square one now, without replying to posts actually made. Repetition here is useless then. How is this not ididnothearthat? (noting, which says its disruptive btw). DePiep (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  That you don't like the reply doesn't mean I haven't replied. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Roundup. Headbomb, could you at least clarify why you are not responding to any of the content-related arguments provided to you? Is there a personal treshold in communicating? Is there a background to your didnothearthat & subsequent hammering your own logic? If so, please address these. -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  What in the world are you talking about? I've directly address the content issue from the minute it started. You're the one that's avoiding the obvious in order to push for some weird unknown categorization agenda. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  "Unknown" only because you don't read & reply to posts. DePiep (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  As for "unknown" (another BF accusation btw): I note that already in CfD 2019 you propsed explicit "deletion", based on you non-understanding. That was rejected by the community. When asked here, you have not provided a quote that would support your statements. -DePiep (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  In that CFD I was explicit that while deletion was a possible outcome, it was not the one I was advocating for. This was pointed to you several times.

  This discussion is, as usual, unproductive, so please go away until you gain consensus at CFD or equivalent that redirects are content pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Read your own post. "unproductive" can be, but I can defend against PAs and BFs when I think needed. Just stop posting BFs & mis/non-readings. Unfollowing. DePiep (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not quite clear what your claim is here. You say, here as well as in the category description itself, that it is for articles and not redirects, but the diff you are upset about is Headbomb removing the category from a redirect? Isn't this exactly what you are saying should happen? jp×g 06:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for talk page spam

I would just nominate the old Signpost pages as G6, but I have been instructed to open individual XFD cases for each page that needs to be deleted; apologies in advance if Twinkle causes me to spam your talk page with more garbage (I will try to remember to uncheck it). jp×g 05:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't mind, I just reverted because it's nothing that needs to be archived. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Uncertainty principle reverted change

Hi! I think Wikipedia is a extremely useful tool and condemn any kind of vandalism, so I very much appreciate the work of those who maintain Wikipedia in good shape.

I changed {\{mvar|ħ}} to <\math>\hbar</math> for a good reason. While on the mobile {\{mvar|ħ}} prints OK, it turns out that on the computer screen it prints as "h" instead of "hbar". I have checked this using two different browsers (firefox and chrome). Please try this and revert your reversion if I am right. Regards, L.L. Salcedo

P.S. I have added three \'s to escape the preview. Llsalcedo (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Update your browswer then, because ħ does render as hbar on all modern browsers. Or adjust your zoom level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Journal of Medical Research" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Journal of Medical Research and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 18 § Journal of Medical Research until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Journal reliability measures!

Where's a good place to talk about how to wrangle multiple overlapping measures of [journal, other source] reliability? I'm wondering about visualizing where a source shows up in a range of contexts, or various wikiproject + personal lists [like the ones that people sometimes post on the u.js talk page].

I also wonder about asking ORES or similar tools to generate + periodically update similar lists. – SJ + 19:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. I will point you to WP:UPSD however, which may or may not be what you have in mind.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WP1.0Log

Template:WP1.0Log has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Victor Weisskopf

Why do you not think that his death merits a mention at the end of a sizeable article? Kablammo (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kablammo: Victor Weisskopf did not die before he was born. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point; my apologies. Will replenish my coffee and correct. Kablammo (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's fine, brainfarts happen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of all references to IslamQA

I was looking at your deletion of all references to IslamQA in Spirit possession and exorcism in Islam, (references I'm responsible for), and wanted to appeal this policy. My case (see debate with User:Iskandar323) is that whether or not you call IslamQA self-published, it is heavily used [see https://www.similarweb.com/website/islamqa.info/#ranking (judging from the substance of the fatwa questions and demographics, used predominately by pious Muslims), so that WP:USEBYOTHERS is relevant. Rather than being deleted on sight, I'd like to propose it always be used with the qualification along the lines of "according to the conservative Salafi fatwa site IslamQA ..." --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS is based on proof of usage in other reliable sources, not proof by pageviews. But to the broader point, surely once you are at the stage where you are caveating a source with "according to the conservative Salafi fatwa site IslamQA ..." it would simply be much better to look for a source that you can simply present in Wikivoice without such extraordinary caveats? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 and Louis P. Boog: Take it to WP:RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with user script

Hello Headbomb, I wanted to ask if you could help me with a new user script I created, see User:Phlsph7/MarkUnreferencedPassages and User:Phlsph7/MarkUnreferencedPassages.js. I have little experience with user scripts so I thought it might be a good idea to have a more experienced script editor have a look at it before I make regular editors aware of it. The script is intended for articles and drafts. It marks passages that lack references. It would be helpful if you could take a short general look at whether the script does what it says in the documentation and whether there are any obvious problems in the code. Since your useful script User:Headbomb/unreliable is also concerned with verifiability, I thought this might be a good fit. But if you are not available, I would also be happy if you could point me in another direction where I might be able to get some feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: I don't have much time at the moment, so I would suggest checking WP:SCRIPTREQ for help. I may have more time at some point in the coming weeks, but it's not a guarantee. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of WP:SCRIPTREQ. I'll try my luck there. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)