User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2018/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CitationCleanerBot is blanking pages

Please fix immediately. [1][2][3], etc -- ferret (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Database timeouts. Nothing I can do about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, seems there is. I thought this stopped working after an AWB udpate, but turns out the 'check after' box of AWB got unclicked somehow. The safeguard should be re-enabled. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-free content as URL link in citations

Regarding your removal of the link to the citation, I'd like to learn more about this rule, but can't find anything about it in the WP policy about non-free content, which seems focused soley on content in the article, not URLs in citations. It seems to me that the URL is beneficial, because it's an official government site, not a commercial interest, and saves the reader from having to google it separately. But what and where is the WP policy relating to that? PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 16:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a long standing practice that the main urls of citations are prioritized for free-to-read sources. It's not prohibited to add links to paywalled/registered sources, but when you have identifiers (ISBNs, DOIs, PMID, etc...) that link to the same page, it's best to free up the url so that someone can add such a free-to-read source in the future. Help:Citation Style 1#Access level of |url= has some information on it, although I'm not sure it's codified anywhere in particular. I'll look in more details and get back to you, or write the guidance myself if it can't be found anywhere else.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I take it this is about [4] in particular? This is a good example of why you don't want those redundant URLs there. Suppose you have a citation like

  • Amato, PR; Kane, JB (1 August 2011). "Parents' Marital Distress, Divorce, and Remarriage: Links with Daughters' Early Family Formation Transitions". Journal of Family Issues. 32 (8): 1073–1103. doi:10.1177/0192513X11404363. PMID 21785523.

The URL points to the same place as the PMID. This is redundant and Pubmed doesn't host a full version of the article, only the abstract. If you add the PMC parameter (we also have bot that do this), it will link to Pubmed Central, which does host a full free version of the article.

While you are told that the PMC link is free, it's easy to miss, and the main link still points to the abstract-only version. Remove the URL parameter however, and you get

Which points to the full free version of the article. Which makes is much more likely that the reader will find the free-to-read version. If you didn't have a PMC link, maybe there's a free PDF hosted on the author's website. Having the pubmed URL there discourages people from looking for those free resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! While you were writing this, I discovered the redundancy (which is bad), but did not know all the other details you covered above. I learned a lot! PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 17:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@PetesGuide: No problem! Keep in mind that adding non-free links in general is usually OK (especially when there is nothing better), but that we prefer a) free links and official links to widely used non-commercial repositories. Non-free links are usually last resort, when nothing from a/b is available, but in any case shouldn't be redundant to what's already there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Error 78 is listed as not cosmetic

The next time you have a question about CHECKWIKI errors please feel to ask me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I'm aware WP:CWERRORS#78 isn't cosmetic, but you're veering extremely close to violating your ban with "One more proof that sometimes an edit may be valid even if it does not change the rendered output." if you haven't done so already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
Do you consider this as discussing some policy? I think you that this is a violation please report it because I want ot have a clear opinion about it. You seem to be the only person complaining lately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm warning you that you're steering close to the line if you haven't crossed it, so that you don't end up being blocked for the same shit that lead to the ban in the first place and that you can focus on productive work rather than arguing policy. Yobot 59 expired, I'd rather have you work on that, but if you would rather be blocked... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
My friend, you gave me a warning for something you think it might be a violation. I ask for clarification so I don't repeat or you stop giving false warnings. Yobot 59 has exprired and I will resumbitt it when I find the time to do it. I am mainly involved in outreach by educating people on using Wikipedia based on its policies. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll be clearer then, if you make those sorts of comments again, I will take you to AE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I posted this Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#I_have_questions_about_a_ban_where_should_I_post_them? so we know where to post. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I respect your opinion so I would really love to know what the ArbCom thinks of hether I violated a restriction or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Line breaks

I have rolled back the pointless edits you made to Kabara, Mali. As stated in the MOS, a line break at the end of a sentence may help editors (like me) who have coordination problems. They are not visible to readers. Please leave them. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but those line breaks make it nearly impossible to review diffs and are done in and incredibly inconsistent manner, which makes things very hard to review in the edit window.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I see my edit summary on the first undo was chopped off. It should have said "per user:aymatth2#Line breaks. I apologise that this was not clear. I have a script somewhere that gives a much more readable diff, which I will try to track down.Aymatth2 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff - but I do not have it installed like that. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I don't really agree with the practice, but I won't revert. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

End of sentence line breaks are useful when writing expository prose since editors can easily shuffle the statements until the natural sequence emerges. Compact {{sfn}} citations at the end of the lines keep markup clutter within the text to the minimum. The style is easier for handicapped editors, invisible to readers and certainly not bad practice.

I would not go so far as to put each parameter of a {{citation}} template on a new line, but is easier to keep the list of sources at the back of an article in alpha sequence if the second line of each source definition starts with the parameter that gives the alpha sort key: author name or title. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

European Journal of Sustainable Development

Extended content

There is a Proposed deletion of European Journal of Sustainable Development, with the reason of Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

Please consider the following argumentation Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. The EJSD Journal is quite indexed in several databases like the Clarivate Analytics: http://mjl.clarivate.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=EX&Full=european%20journal%20of%20sustainable%20development

Worldcat http://www.worldcat.org/title/european-journal-of-sustainable-development/oclc/894640614

IndexXopernicus https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/details?id=8946

other indexes: https://www.science.gov/scigov/desktop/en/results.html https://agricola.nal.usda.gov/vwebv/searchStatus.do https://www.econbiz.de/Record/european-journal-of-sustainable-development-elektronische-ressource-ejsd/10009698622

http://kvk.bibliothek.kit.edu/hylib-bin/kvk/nph-kvk2.cgi?maske=kvk-redesign&lang=en&title=KIT-Bibliothek%3A+Karlsruher+Virtueller+Katalog+KVK+%3A+Ergebnisanzeige&head=%2F%2Fkvk.bibliothek.kit.edu%2Fasset%2Fhtml%2Fhead.html&header=%2F%2Fkvk.bibliothek.kit.edu%2Fasset%2Fhtml%2Fheader.html&spacer=%2F%2Fkvk.bibliothek.kit.edu%2Fasset%2Fhtml%2Fspacer.html&footer=%2F%2Fkvk.bibliothek.kit.edu%2Fasset%2Fhtml%2Ffooter.html&css=none&input-charset=utf-8&ALL=&TI=&AU=&CI=&ST=&PY=&SB=&SS=2239-6101&PU=&kataloge=SWB&kataloge=BVB&kataloge=NRW&kataloge=HEBIS&kataloge=HEBIS_RETRO&kataloge=KOBV_SOLR&kataloge=GBV&kataloge=DDB&ref=direct&client-js=yes&inhibit_redirect=1

https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2737349555

Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. 

EJSD citations are available at https://scholar.google.it/scholar?hl=it&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=10.14207+&btnG=

Meanwhile the Journal ranking based on the h-index is 9th worldwide in the field of Sustainable Developmnet https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_venues&vq=sustainable+development&btnG=

Please consider this arguments in not deleting the Article of European Journal of Sustainable Development Thank you for your precious collaboration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamantina.A (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus?

Can you please indicate me where in the talk page is this discussion and where was consensus achieved for that? As far as I undersand, the section refers to single articles so any mention on "bot-like" editing in a sinle page does not make any sense.

The spirit of the edit warring thing is that people who try custom styles against standard form should not edit war about it. I think your line reverts the meaning. Wikipedia articles follow a Manual of Style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

See the longstanding policies/guidelines of WP:MEATBOT and WP:STYLEVAR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
But where the chang you made was discussed? I would like to comment there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
WT:MOS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry but I can't find the appropriatte section in the talk page. Moreover, the one rule you provide me as reason of changing WP:STYLEVAR is WP:STYLEVAR itself. I am need some sleep and get some rest? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposed_footnote_to_discourage_mass_changes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Are your bots edit warring with each other?

In addition to the "predatory open access journal" tag thing I alerted you about on MinusBot's talk, but multiple bots of yours are editing strangely. Look at the history of this article: [5]  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

They're not edit warring with each other, no. Also I see nothing related to predatory open access journals on MinusBot's talk page.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine-structure constant

Hi Headbomb

I am Leonardo Chiatti. I discovered that I was recently mentioned in the Talk section of WP's "Fine-structure constant" page in relation to a paper of mine recently published on IJQF. I'm sorry for what happened and I agree that speculative arguments (although hopely well-founded) have no encyclopedic relevance. I just wanted to clarify the following: 1) IJQF is published by the Beijing Academy of Sciences, and is combined with a forum in which the Gotha of foundational research in physics participates, from Aharanov to Maudlin to Hiley, to be limited to some names; these people also act as referees; 2) the article talks about something else. In fact the purpose of this work, and of my other recent works, was not the "deduction of alpha", but the proposal (compatible with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory) of an objective ontology of radiation processes. The alpha estimate contained in the paper merely wanted to highlight that an "objectivist" approach has the potential to transform a mystery (the value of alpha) into something that can be scientifically investigated. However, I can not claim to have solved the mystery, as the enthusiastic reader of my article concluded. Cordially

Leonardo Chiatti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.228.19.68 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

DatBot 9

It's running now but it seems like Yobot has already tagged most of the pages. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@DatGuy:, yeah that's fine/expected. The point is to have a bot tag those files automatically so we don't have to do that ourselves. Yobot did that a while ago, but it wasn't a continuing task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Using Template:Hover title instead of Template:Abbr for User:AAlertBot

Right now, AAlertBot uses Template:Abbr via the {{Tooltip}} redirect, but for accessibility reasons (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text) {{Abbr}} should only be used for abbreviations. I don't think the source code for AAlertBot is available, but would you consider replacing the use? The order of parameters is opposite, though, so I think you'd go from {{tooltip|'''1''' participant|del: 0, keep: 0}} to {{Hover title|del: 0, keep: 0|'''1''' participant}}. The end result should be the same. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: would have been better to post this at WP:AALERTS/FR, but I'll ping @Hellknowz: on this, since he's the one that can do a thing about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your recent BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot 3, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 13:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:UNED Research Journal/ Cuadernos de Investigación UNED

Regarding this contribution to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UNED_Research_Journal/_Cuadernos_de_Investigación_UNED

I added the external references requested. There are over 800 scientific and technical journals in Central America (http://www.latindex.org), but few have international notability. UNED Research journal is important in the region because it is known worlwide, as proved by the countries of origin of its articles (eastern Asia, Tropical Africa, Europe, The USA, Latin America), and by its presence in highly selective indices, like Scielo, Latindex, Redalyc. According to Latindex standards, the journal complies with 31/36 of the characteristics of a high standard journal. The journal and the articles published can be accessed via OCLC and World Cat library as well as Google Scholar, the Directory of Open Access Journals. A number of libraries around the world have this journal within their catalogue, for example the National Library of Australia, University of Brighton, Journal TOC's, National Scientific and Technical Research Council.

To check this information, please refer to the section References, where I included all the relevant links.

Best regards. LEU Asistente (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@LEU Asistente: "Few have international notability", well, if they're not notable, then they're not notable. Nothing much that can be done around that. Scielo/Redalyc aren't selective in the sense of WP:NJOURNALS, as they'll index pretty much anything from Latin/South America that's not complete garbage (I'm not familiar with the Latindex much, but a quick glance seems it's not very selective either). This doesn't mean they're not good journals / good indices for their purpose (making of scholarship from Latin/South America visible), but they're not selective. And if we bring the article in line with WP:JWG, we're pretty much let with the 3 first sentences of the lead and the history section, pretty much everything else would go.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Master thesis on Wikipedia Bot Policy

Dear Headbomb,

I'm currently working on my master thesis - an analysis of Wikipedia's bot policy development (German and English communities). The data I focus my analysis on are the contributions to the talk pages of the two sites Wikipedia:Bots (de) and Wikipedia:Bot Policy (en). I already dived a bit into the data from the English talk page and also had a look on the history log of the policy site. I noted that you are one of the main contributors to this policy. I would be very happy, if you could answer some of my questions regarding the development of the policy.

  • Where did the policy's contributors mainly discuss the contents of the policy?
  • Were contents usually put on the project page first and discussed later or vice versa?
  • How important are the IRC channel and the mailing list to the development of the policy?
  • How did the contributors ensured that the contents of the policy always aligned with the general consensus?

If you also know someone who can give me more insight into this topic, I would be very happy, too. Any answer to one or more of my questions will be extremely valuable to me.

Kind regards --Mmaarie (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mmaarie: Hi Mmaarie! I'll gladly answer your questions, but I'll ping Xaosflux (talk · contribs) as one of the oldest/wisest active WP:BAG members (here since pretty much the beginning of bots on Wikipedia, if not before).
  1. Concerning discussion of WP:BOTPOL (and in the past WP:BOTS), I believe most of it happened on the talk page (WT:BOTPOL as well as WT:BOTS). The archive boxes on those pages will link to most old policy-related discussions, as well as some proto-policy discussions. There are likely a few WP:VP discussions as well, but those aren't centralized. Maybe Xaosflux knows of a few important ones off the top of their heads. There may be some discussions at WP:BOTN (and its archives) too.
  2. I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean Were contents usually put....?, if so, what do you mean by content? Do you mean the main text of the policy?
  3. I have never used the mailing list (I'm not even aware there's a bot-specific mailing list), but if there is such a mailing list, my impression is that no one cares about it. Concerning IRC, it's a very informal channel. The most policy-related discussion I've seen there is BAG members headdesking in exasperation of particularly clueless/egregious behaviour of certain bot operators. We sometimes ping each other for input, but the feedback there is very "Here's a draft/Here are my tweaks" followed by "Yeah looks good." or "I'll take a look." followed by on-wiki edits (either copy-editing/tweaks to the draft/policy directly, or a talk page discussion ensues). All in all, I'd say IRC is not very important to policy developments, and mostly serves as a "BTW, can you take a look at this" sort of venue. Anything remotely serious happens on-wiki, since we want a public record of what was done and why.
  4. I say a good chunk of the policy (the day-to-day stuff, refinements to wordings that clarify meaning without changing the substance of the policy) has grown organically from experience-based WP:CLUE. For instance, when I updated the WP:BOTISSUE section, I just boldly edited the page and posted a message on the talk page to get feedback from the bot crowd to make sure I didn't write anything crazy/objectionable. Other things are just boldly done, and if there's an issue, Wikipedia users are not afraid to voice their discontent so it either gets reverted quickly or refined to bring it in line with consensus. For changes that are more substantial/possibly controversial (what is/isn't allowed, e.g. a simplification to ADMINBOT), there is at the very least a consensus-gathering discussion on WT:BOTPOL, or a well-advertised WP:RFC.
I hope that answers your questions, let me know if there are more, or things you need clarified! @Xaosflux:, feel free to chip in at any point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Headbomb,
Thank you very much for your answers and the insights! Coming from the theoretical point of view, information from someone who has actually worked on the policy is very helpful. The second question was quite confusing, but the information I was looking for actually came with your last answer :)
I will analyze my way through the talk pages and ask again if I come across anything I don't understand :)
Kind regards, --Mmaarie (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Dear Headbomb,
I stumbled over another question during my analysis and would be very happy if you could help me when you find the time.
This site is supposedly to show users by their user groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/bot. Also, it is stated that the status is held up to date by bureaucrates assigning and revoking status. Due to the inactivity policy on bots I assume that the filtered list displays only active bots. What I don't understand is that rambot is not shown in this list even though on the userpage for this bot it still has a bot status. Do you know why that is and in case of an inconsistency of the list, if this affects other bots as well?
Also, is there a recent list of all active bots, their last edits and their overall edits in the English Wikipedia?
Kind regards, Mmaarie (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mmaarie: As far as I can tell, Rambot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since 2006, so it's not an active bot. Its userpage should probably be updated marks it as an 'unapproved bot'. For a list of bots like that, I don't know of any that's up to date, but there are some in Category: Wikipedia bots or possibly Category:Wikipedia bots (historical). If you wish a more up-to-date list of all active/past bots, honestly I'd make a bot request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Headbomb/Archives/2018/July&oldid=854979743"