User Talk Archives My work Sandbox Resources News Stats

G10Edit

I encourage you to carefully read WP:G10. You wrote several incorrect things such as G10 covers attacks on people. Not negative pages about entities. Entities are specifically mentioned and the existence of Db-attackorg makes it clear. I encourage you to admit the error and apologize to the other editor. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe G10 can cover non-people entities, but I also disagree that the ATINER draft is an attack page, and would have removed it regardless. I'll also point out that if you object to the G10, you get presented with "This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) -- <sig>", it says nothing about non- biographies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm coming here because I suspect that Prax doesn't really want us all discussing this over on her talk. I also want to emphasise that I'm not looking to have a go at you here - I greatly value your contributions, I use one of your scripts myself (the one that highlights dodgy refs in different colours according to their dodginess), I'm not looking to chase you out of the room. However, let's be clear - there's no 'maybe' about this - G10 can be and is used for articles about non-human entities, that's not up for debate. Whether the page in question is a valid G10 is another matter, but it would be nice if you were to acknowledge that you misunderstood the policy in this area.
On the question of gender and treating people equally and blindly, I hear what you're saying, but consider this: you declare yourself to be a man (as do I). The problem of men telling women they are overreacting when they are upset has been written about extensively - I'm sure you don't need me to dig out links. If you choose to declare your gender, and you choose not to try to find out the gender of the person you're speaking to, I do think it would be better if you were to find a different way to speak to people who are upset by something you have said. Girth Summit (blether) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
"Maybe" is the wrong word. "Entities" is mentioned very clearly in the policy. Perhaps the alert language should be modified. Please do not be pedantic. Two administrators have explained that your interpretation of the policy language is wrong. Do the right thing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Fine, I'll accept G10 applies to non-people. But is it ever shittily worded if that's the case.
As for the tangent on gender, I'll disagree with you there. I'd say the same to anyone, unless I know them personally, everyone's a faceless, genderless, raceless, nameless blob of unknown and irrelevant sexual orientation. If others want to bring their own biases into it, that's on them. I'm a man and I don't shy away from that identity, but I can't recall ever drawing attention to it, or using my gender as the basis of any argument. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
OK cool, I don't mind reasonable people disagreeing with me. Would you be willing to apologise for any offence caused, and to acknowledge the mistake? We could really do without losing Prax's expertise at SPI, I really mean that. Girth Summit (blether) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
They've told me to piss off and go away a few times already. I don't feel like having a revenge/harassment ban on me for apologizing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll say here for posterity that this is a tempest in a teacup and that Wikipedia is better with Prax than without them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Would you mind if I drew her attention to these comments on her talk? Tempests and teacups aside, from where I'm sitting Wikipedia would be far more open to attack from LTAs without Prax's long memory and ability to spot connections. Just earlier today I processed an SPI case in which she suspected from experience something that I was unable to detect with the CU tool - if she hadn't been there to tell me what to look for, I'd have missed the connection. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kenpmi, if you're interested. That sort of thing happens a lot - I don't want to lose her skills. Girth Summit (blether) 19:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely feel free to do so. I bear her no ill will here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I've just done so. I should probably add, for the record, that I think the chances of Praxidicae responding to an honest and frank apology by seeking an interaction ban would be zero. Yes, we can tie ourselves up in knots with who is banned from who's talk page, but everyone who has been involved in this discussion is an experienced editor, we all want what's best for the project - I'm confident that we can all see good faith attempts to de-escalate and get along together for what they are. Girth Summit (blether) 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe, but I don't feel comfortable taking that chance. Especially in light of the vagueness of WP:UCOC and the shitshow of pseudo-legalistic readings of what gender-based harassment is. I don't need twitter after me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Cite journalEdit

Hello. There seems to be problem with the cite journal template. On one article I received error messages regarding the usage of this template. I thought it was me and I was intending to go back and see if I can fix it. This is the article. To see the error message you have to open it with the edit button and press the "Show preview" button.

So I started a new article in my user space and I have an error message at the end of the citation in the References section [1]. There is a link at the end of the citation that goes to the "cite journal" template page. So, I am thinking the problem is within the template itself. I am wondering if you can have a look when you're not busy. Or maybe you can direct me to someone else who knows about Wikipedia software. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker reply) @Steve Quinn: the template is working fine. The error at The American War in Afghanistan: A History is informing you that the citation is missing the |journal= parameter. The source you're citing there appears to actually be Foreign Affairs, a magazine, so {{cite magazine}} is the template you should use.
At User:Steve Quinn/Hammer and Rifle the error is similar, only this time it's because you've included an |access-date= parameter without specifying a URL. However in this case, you appear to be either citing a book, so {{cite book}} is the template you should be using, or a book review in which case {{cite web}} seems more appropriate. Hope that helps. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th. Thanks very much. I think this is very helpful. And I am sure you just saved Headbomb from having a headache   ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

New startEdit

Dear Mr. Headbomb, sincere apologies for my errors, I started off on the wrong foot. Please, how to start a new article even with the two lines you left: Looking forward to your reply. ATINER stands for Athens Institute for Education and Research. ATINER is listed on Bealls list of potential predatory journals and publishers[1] and the California Institute of Technology library guide list ATINER host of "questionable conferences".[2] References

"Beall's List – of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers". Retrieved 2022-06-08.
Roth, Dana (2022-06-08). "Questionable Conferences - Open Access - LibGuides at California Institute of Technology". California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2022-06-08.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by UniversityRecords (talkcontribs) 12:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC) 

Removal of Frontiers ReferenceEdit

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)

Please see new draft your Feedback, Corrections are really appreciatedEdit

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)

Predatory sourceEdit

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)