User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/August

AFD & AWB

Hi Headbomb, Do you have any diffs to support AFDs being edited 3 years after closures because I've never seen this happen and I've participated in well over a thousand AFDs and none as far as I recall have ever been edited with AWB,
I strongly object to your edits because it gives the impression the editor had added this template themselves when infact they didn't, Also old AFDs never get revisted anyway unless they're used as evidence so the edit here is rather pointless but as I said my main objection to it is it's essentially misleading,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

AFD are archived and serve as records of what happened, and are revisited all the time (e.g. [1]). Making such records easier to peruse is a good thing. The edit didn't change anything of meaning, not even a typo, so to claim it's misleading is quite mind-boggling. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No I know but adding the code gives the impression this is what the user did when they didn't - , That being said I do agree as editors are actually revisiting it it does make sense to have it linked, Ah well thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it'd be an issue even if it somehow 'gave that impression'. If you type PMID 0123465, you'll get PMID 0123465, even if you didn't type [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/0123465?dopt=Abstract PMID 0123465]. And later a bot will convert this to PMID 123465 because magic linking is going out in June 2018. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Gavari page housekeeping and have added some foster parents

Sire,

Do appreciate the Wiki syntactic assistance - am quite a newbie here and your changes were instructive.

As for the orphan status, have connected it to several of the other most relevant pages: Bhil people, Mewar, Shamanism, Goddesses, etc. What else has to be done to remedy its loneliness?

Would appreciate guidance Eklingdas (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eklingdas: Well WP:ORPHAN has the details. Linking from 1 article is technically enough, linking from 3+ is considered best practice. So if you've linked from 4+, the only thing you need to do now is remove the orphan template! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Done - thanks for pointing out the issue. Eklingdas (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the blockchain article

Hi Headbomb, yesterday you moved some references in the definition and initial explanation of the blockchain article behind the comma and the point (see "Line 2" when comparing the history). Now it looks to me that the references were relating to the complete subset or phrase which are before the comma and the point, but the references shall only relate to the single words because there was a dispute about the correct definition and citation of the sources. Did you keep this in mind? Kind regards Stefan Konst (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:REFPUNCT. But more specifically, if I see , called "blocks"^[1], or , called "blocks",^[1], I'm equally going to assume ^[1] supports the called blocks claim. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation! Stefan Konst (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:JMA small

Template:JMA small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Identifier fix bug (July 26 edit, just found)

This appears to be some sort of script error or other problem. Do you think there are more? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the ASIN, this was simply eye-fatigue I think, and I missed it. Pretty sure I've tweaked the script since to avoid those, but I'll double check before doing another similar run. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not just the ASIN. Also the unbalanced braces. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes that. That was custom for a very small selection of pages. I thought I did it right (possibly manually too), but I guess I fucked it up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I found and fixed two of them that showed up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors this morning. That may be it, though I suppose an insource search could turn up more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Gaetan, maybe this barnstar does not describes exactly the nice work you've done on many entries I contributed to, but I feel you deserve it: nice job! Best, Daniele.tampieri (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daniele.tampieri: Well, I don't know what I did, or what you're referring to exactly, but I'm glad you've found it helpful! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass notification bot for User:Walkerma

I'll dig and find where it is. This is a reminder for myself. If I don't get to you by Wednesday, ping me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For the discussion we had. There are greater things we are fighting here. Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

One reason I think I am just under the microscope

5,000 pages from main account. I find it OK but I wonder why you find it OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really understand what it is you're asking. Looks like a standard tagging run. Kinda boring to do manually, but I don't really see the issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So I would be able to do the same. No reason to use a bot account for 5,000 edits, right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You have an ongoing semi-automatic editing topic ban. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not right now. The ban is about to expire soon. I wonder why we have a communication problem here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

IF the community lifts it. You haven't made yourself any friends with this new ARBCOM case, and I doubt anyone would be comfortable lifting the ban while the case is unresolved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Till today's status, the ban will be lifted. Feel free to contest that fact. Lel. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so optimistic if I were you, you might end up being severely disappointed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't make comments on the ArbCom outside the ArbCom. My comment is about the "current status". I don't make assumptions for the future in contrary to you. I state the facts and feel free to contest the fact that the current status is a ban that will expire soon. I don't use the ArbCom case a chat channel with random comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a ban that may expire soon. Whether or not it gets lifted greatly depends on what the community thinks of lifting it. Which will likely be influenced by how the ARBCOM case resolves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"The proposal to ban Magioladitis from using AWB passes, and he is banned from using AWB or any other semi-automated or automated editing tools on his main account for a period of 2 months after which the ban made be appealed to the community". I think it's clear enough -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ofcourse ArbCom may lead to lift of the ban(s) earlier based on the evidence. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keywords "after which the ban [may be] appealed to the community." AKA you are banned for 2 months, at least. Then you can appeal. Whether or nor the appeal is successful is something neither of us can predict, but I can tell you that the more you keep poking and wikilawyering around your restrictions, the less likely they are to be lifted. And no, ARBCOM does not lift community bans. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, the ban is about the expire. Then, there will be a discussion of how to proceed. I don't understand why you think this is wikilawyering. I never expressed strong opinion of how things should be done. I just wnat to provide community with the options. You keep trying to stop the RfC about the implementation of the policy that you wrote which I find weird. As you said, based on the ArbCom the community may lift the bans and finally start the discussion that will solve the problem i.e. the implementation RfC.-- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The ban is about to be appealed sure. That doesn't mean the ban will expire. It may easily be extended. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "trying to stop the RfC about the implementation of the policy that [I] wrote". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As fars as I understand all the panic is about the fact that I expressed interest to help creating a discussion of how to implement the new policy. This led to a topic ban to stop the discussion from happening. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I would tread carefully if I were you, depending on what exactly you mean, you could be getting awfully close to violating your first topic ban here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand that I am not discussing the policy right? Someone is wikilawyring here :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You might not be discussing policy directly, but you could be getting close to the line depending on how exactly someone reads you words. This could easily be taken as "participating in discussions concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT" or alternatively, "in discussions concerning the impact of WP:COSMETICBOT on other bot operators". You have been vague enough on what you mean that I'm asking you to be careful, rather than taking you to WP:AE/WP:ANI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I just repeated what I said to the ArbCom about the root of the case. So I am very careful. We are here to make a better world with full access to the human knowledge and overcome those who with various ways want to limit this access and moreover control the knowledge to their benefit. Wikipedia has been tested by those and their agents who at various occasions tried to limit that. Only by forming a friendly environment of communication we can provide this to the humanity. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

On the ban:OK, we have a technical disagreement about the terms "expire" and "renewal". No big deal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I reread the discussion. I think it's best if you get me to ANI for the above comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You want me to take you to ANI??? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps for clarification; if you think it's neccessary? If you think I violated a ban with my comments, let's get over with it and clear the situation. I left you a message that I think it was friendly and you gave me a warning. I don't think this is a nice enviroment for me to work as a volunteer. So I would prefer no hard feelings between editors. Anyway. Night! It's getting late here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no desire to end up at ANI over this. The warning isn't meant as a threat, but as a friendly reminder to be careful. You have had problems figuring out where the line was in the past, and you have been blocked over it before. I don't know how close to the line you are, and I don't want to find out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Btw, I hope you read Bgwhite's comments of how he ended up not editing in Wikipedia recently. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw, and it sheds no light on his reasons. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"some of the same reasons and people that drove me from here are evident again". Just remember, anything decided here will be used against others to stop editing via AWB or editing altogether." He mentions certain people... -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They're not evident to me, nor do I believe his claims that "anything decided here will be used against others to stop editing via AWB or editing altogether". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to discuss the case itself. I just underline the fact that he mentioned the reason he was driven out despite his wish to stay. And he is ot the only one unfortunatelly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware he said that. I just can't connect it to anything I've seen anywhere. My guess is that bgwhite read something in someone's comment that just wasn't there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have provided similar evidence though. I hope the ArbCom reads carefully. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Evidence which is vague and unspecific. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I won't comment the case here. :) I am just happy that I share the same concerns with Rich and Bgwhite. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

All of which are vague and unspecific. You've convinced no one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How do you know? Was there any discussion in th IRC channel which I missed? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Vague and unspecific evidence never convinces anyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah OK. It's just an assumption then. Still please don't comment evidence here and neither to IRC admin channel. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Everything I've said that is relevant to the case has been said on wiki. I don't hang in the IRC admin channel, since I'm not an admin. Even if I were, I doubt I'd hang in there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lightmouse: if they are available to read this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

There is a lot a great work done on Immunoglobulin M and it is a topic that is pretty important. Thanks for all you do. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits to rhodocene references

Hi Headbomb, I see that you have expanded the journal names in the reference list of the rhodocene article. I'd like to point out a small error so you can avoid it in the future. The page Angewandte Chemie relates to two versions of the journal, the original (published in German) and the International Edition (published in English). All three articles in the reference list came from the English versions, and were correctly listed in abbreviated form. Your edits changed these to give the journal as the German language version, in which case pages and volume locants, etc, are incorrect. I have corrected the references and am leaving this note so you'll know in future to look whether abbreviated Angew Chem references should point to Angewandte Chemie or Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem: 100% my bad, with much apologies! I always rely on the original text rather than on the target link (usually because very often something like Phys Rev C is piped to Physical Review rather than Physical Review C), but I've brain farted this time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We all make mistakes at times, thanks for responding with class.  :) EdChem (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Pseudophysics

Hi Headbomb, I'm not sure if this is your scene but I'm concerned about an article on Nassim Haramein that has popped up recently. It describes him as a physicist, but any search of reputable journals refutes this. His main claim to a peer-reviewed publication is this paper, which is published by these people. It's grade A bullshit (here's a brief analysis) but those who want to believe have other ideas. Here's an analysis of his next physics paper, and here's the one before. His work hasn't had (and doesn't warrant) scientific refutation (because it isn't science), so there's little to cite beyond blogs to to counter the promotional material in the article. His PR has been getting slicker and slicker to the point where it's hard not to be impressed. He also has a following of extremely persistent and committed fans who think he's the next Einstein - I haven't attempted to edit the page because I know exactly what will happen.

The fate of his previous Wikipedia page is here. I wouldn't argue that he shouldn't have a page at this point, just that it should reflect reality. What's the best way to alert physics editors at large to this kind of thing? Bobathon71 (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bobathon71: best place would be to post a notice on the talk page of WP:PHYS and at WP:FRINGEN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you Bobathon71 (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis 2 proposed decisions posted

Hi Headbomb, in the open Magioladitis_2 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb, why are you editing the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Proposed decision page? Only Arbcom members and arbitration clerks are allowed to edit that page, which is the standard rule for all arbitration proposed decision pages. See the banner at the top of the proposed decision page: "Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page". You should move your comments to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Proposed decision. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mdann52 above just asked me to comment and there's a comment section, so I commented? But I'll move the comments to the talk page if that's where they belong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What Mdann52 actually wrote is that "Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page". The "Comments" section in the Proposed decision page is meant for the discussion between the arbcom members themselves -- although perhaps they could be more clear on this point... Anyway, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably a case of banner blindness more than anything else. I'd suggest putter the warning banner at the very top of the page, where people would expect it. Anyway, apologies for the hassle. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Transcranial direct-current stimulation

@Headbomb:

You reverted my changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-current_stimulation with reference to WP:MEDRS. Why is the reference ive added a less reliable source than those there already? I added: http://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1612999

NEJM is a very reputable journal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Journal_of_Medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd-pedia (talk • contribs)

You'll want to ask Doc James (talk · contribs), he's the one who revert this. I suspect however, that it has to do with this reference being a primary source, which are typically frowned upon, especially for medical claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually it seems like it's Alexbrn (talk · contribs) who reverted you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, yes the NEJM is a good journal. The request was however to use a "literature or systematic review" rather than a "primary source" per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Subtitles in ISO-4

Are you aware the example abbreviating Journal of polymer science. Part A-1, Polymer chemistry as J. polym. sci., A-1, Polym. chem. is actually straight from the ISO-4 document? They also write An abbreviation for the dependent title is required in addition to that of the common title, even when the common title is distinguished by a number or letter as well. I agree it's weird (and Wikipedia seems to have an opposite informal convention?) or maybe we shouldn't treat all subtitles as dependent titles. In this case note also that the journal itself (in covers and the pdfs) displays the subtitle much more prominently that the title. Tokenzero (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of that no. But I know no one ever cites this journal in abbreviated form as anything other than J. Polym. Sci. A.. Subtitles never make it in the abbreviated form (and rarely make it in in the full form as well). This is weird. But if it's taken from the doc, feel free to place it back in the article (with the ref). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)