User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2024/June

Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences

Dear Headbomb! You removed a peer-revied reference from humic substance wikipedia article.

You are not right! That is an ordinary journal article. It was published in Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences and you can even read the names of the referees:

https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/76978

That was a serous element analytical investigation, you should restore that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sci1972 (talk • contribs)

This refers to this edit, and I stand by it. Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences is journal from the well-known predatory publisher Sciencedomain International. It is not a reliable source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Sciences edits

Headbomb, I have previously disclosed my working relationship with Frontiers and that I am making edits with the knowledge of my colleagues. If you're insisting on use of the specific COI tag for all edits, we can discuss that in terms of parity with all other edits to similar scholarly journal pages. But the edits themselves should remain for their factual accuracy. Happy to discuss further. Thank you! Tomciav (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

As explained to you both on the warning and at WP:JWG#COI, you are required by policy (see WP:PAID) to have these tags.

You can discuss your proposed edits on the article's talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Headbomb, who are the "both"? I'm the only party working on behalf of Frontiers. Randykitty has yet to disclose their potential conflicts.

As for use of the COI tag — it is indeed the letter of the law. But it's neither used nor enforced consistently across all pages for academic journals. So I'll need to see the community moderate its zeal for selective edits before I annotate every edit with a COI. A public disclosure on the article Talk page should suffice.

All that said, I respectfully request you roll back the page to my edits from a few hours ago. If you'd like to discuss offline I'm tom.ciavarella [at] frontiersin [dot] org Tomciav (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Both refers to "on the warning and at WP:JWG#COI" (there was a typo). RK doesn't have a COI.

As for So I'll need to see the community moderate its zeal for selective edits before I annotate every edit with a COI. , but don't be surprised when you end up blocked.

As for I respectfully request you roll back the page to my edits from a few hours ago. Simply put, no. Your edits are promotional and do not improve the page. If you disagree, you can take it to the talk page, where such discussions belong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 8 § Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications‎

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 8 § Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications‎ on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Cite simbad

You reverted my edit to Template:Cite simbad/doc, saying the template does not accept all parameters that {{cite web}} does. I just used Module:Template wrapper in {{Cite simbad}} to enable that. May I restore my edit? — hike395 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Why should the module support all the parameters of cite web? Why would support for, say, |ISSN= add? Why would anyone to add |via=? There's a reason only those parameters are supported. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. Your edit summary said "it does not", not that you were disagreeing with the template wrapping. — hike395 (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

At the time that's what I thought, as I didn't see the change, but I've since undone it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a "predatory source"

Stop deleting referenced information as you did here for the second time with the reason being given as "predatory source". The author of the "predatory source", Rafaello Furlan, is the Head of Department for Architecture and Urban Planning at Qatar's largest university and the journal article is uploaded on Qatar University's website. Instead of blindly deleting "predatory sources" from articles you've never contributed to, it might help to use a little common sense and check if the source is reliable first. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Rather stop inserting predatory sources as a reference. It does not matter who the author is, this is an unreliable source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Predatory_journal_for_Doha_Corniche. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apologies for my tone. Is this a reliable journal? I think it could be used a replacement, at least for the "urban majlis" part. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That is also a predatory publisher, sadly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Without having looked at them in great detail, I'd suggest sources like doi:10.4324/9781315725468-14, doi:10.4324/9781003156529-10, or doi:10.4305/METU.JFA.2012.2.2, [1] instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources - not sure if I can access all of them but I'm sure there are some other reliable sources I could find. I've self-reverted and will try to find a replacement. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobots at List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century)

Just in case you intended the removal of {{nobots}} to be permanent, could you get WikiCleanerBot to respect {{bots-deny}}? Thank you. Ivan (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Иованъ: If WikiCleanerBot is the issue, I would contact the owner at User talk:WikiCleanerBot to explain what the issue is since WikiCleanerBot doesn't follow {{nobots}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Vitamin E deletion

The two pathway figures were added to Commons by account Jaira Gabionza on the same day (2 June 2022) as the paragraph you deleted, which had been added on that date by User:Grnstne also the only contribution from that account. The figures are described as "Own work" This is the only Wikipedia Commons entry attributed to this account. Are the figures from the Biochemistry reference? Should they be deleted? David notMD (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. Links? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I will try again. You deleted a paragraph from Vitamin E for reason that the reference was to a known 'predatory journal'. The revised article contains two synthesis figures that were added on the same day as the now deleted text. Is it possible that the figures were copied or derived from the reference, and should also be deleted? The information about who did what raised my suspicion because one account created the figures at Commons and then a different account added those to the article along with the paragraph, all on the same day, and these were the only edits by these accounts. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They likely should be deleted then, I agree. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I will do it. Thanks for giving this some thought. David notMD (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

ASIN Query

Hi Headbomb, I hope you're doing well. I don't think we've spoken since the FS debacle a while back, but I had a question for you.

I'm looking at {{ASIN}} and reading through the past deletion nominations. I was particularly struck by your comment on the most recent nomination ([2]), that "While {{ASIN}} shouldn't be used when other identifiers like the ISBN is available, it is sometimes the only identifier available for a source".

It seems that this is a common and perhaps the only valid argument for inclusion, but it makes no sense to me. I'm aware that ISBNs are vastly lacking, but I find it almost impossible to claim that there are sources out there with an ASIN but without an OCLC. Surely on occasion, yes, but I would bet good money that 99% of current ASIN uses could be replaced by OCLCs (or even ISBNs)... Am I missing something here? Aza24 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what the FS debacle is. As for this current topic with ASIN, if you can find an OCLC entry that can replace an ASIN, by all means replace it. But that's very often a lot of work, and also very often leads to nowhere.

The example on the doc page is pretty relevant Leon Burr Richardson. (1932). History of Dartmouth College, Volumes 1 and 2. Dartmouth College Publications. ASIN B00086U61Y/ASIN B0025V2UFA.

These books are too old for ISBNs. They might have OCLCs. They might have LCCNs. If you find those, feel free to replace the ASINs. Otherwise the ASINs beat no identifier at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to Francis Schonken.

Lets just forget about ISBNs. Richardson does indeed have an OCLC, and I can't see how it could be a lot of work to find. WorldCat isn't great, but if you have the book name, year, publisher, you'll find what you're looking for with ease. I don't think these scenarios of "there's no OCLC so ASIN is necessary" is an actual concern.

For example, Amazon has 30–50 million books, according to some quick google searches. WorldCat has over 405 million. If no OCLC exists, it is probably too niche to be on Amazon to begin with. Aza24 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, if and when you can find OCLCs, you're welcomed to replace ASINs with them. That doesn't make ASINs pointless, at worst they are a temporary solution. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but thanks for indulging me regardless :) Aza24 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, re FS, I appear to have completely confused you with another admin, Hammersoft. My apologies! – Aza24 (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin here, but I did have plenty of clashes with FS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 26#Category:Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications

Good morning,

I've submitted a new renaming proposal for the above template and a number of linked ones. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I would welcome your views on the new proposal. Mdann52 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dot-equivalent

Template:Dot-equivalent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)