I genuinely thought they unbundled the edit right. I looked back at the past RFAs and I can see why you would not want to go through that again. It's a shame. I am sure we've disagreed loudly and often, but you should be an admin. Guy (help!) 23:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not me - they did. I can set EFM for you. Let me fix it at the board. Guy (help!) 00:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Well, WP:EFM is fine by me if that's available to non-admins. As for disagreement, we have had many, usually around the topic of journal notability, but I don't really let a simple difference of opinion on matters change my opinion about someone. For that, it takes much more egregious behaviour, usually of the kind where I'm accused of being WP:NOTHERE, from someone 'above' me, in the wiki hierarchy. Not saying there won't ever be an RFA/Headbomb 5, but I only went through RFA/Headbomb 4 because someone really wanted to nominate me. I was fully aware the Philosophia debacle was going to come up, and warned them against it, but they still wanted to nominate me.

As for being an admin, if you need admin powers to get anything done on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be an admin in the first place. The only real difference me not being an admin makes is that the entries in User:Headbomb/CSD log have a name other than 'Headbomb' next to the deletions, a couple of RFPP requests have had slightly different resolutions, and some revdel stuff gets done by other people. And that admin time is being wasted. I'm certainly not losing sleep over it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, Ha! Well, there you go. EFM is the way. Apologies for being a putz, and I unequivocally support this grant for you.

As for RfA, I think people have completely forgotten the "no big deal" business. Yes, some of us are a bit grumpy sometimes, so what? The question is, would you abuse the tools? IMO, no. You are a principled person. You would consider it hypocritical to do that which you condemn in others. This seems obvious to me. Guy (help!) 00:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. People want adminship to be a bigger deal than it is, and worry about hypotheticals, then freak out about made up concerns, rather than whether or not there is a legit concern for someone misusing the tools. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, how does this meet NJournals? I lust be missing something... --Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm mostly basing this based on its establishment in 1880 (I know, I know, age...) and included in some non-idiotic indices. There's bound to be more sources (haven't done a full search yet), but I felt it was important to distinguish from the Scientific & Academic Publishing nonsense journal since there's ~30 citations to it. No real argument for a Keep at AFD yet, but like I said, I'm still digging. It's not exactly the most distinct name in the world. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the name doesn't make it easier to search for sources, because as it is, it fails NJournals so it'll have to make GNG. It's surprising that after all that time it didn't get included in, at least, Scopus. I'll not take it to AfD for the time being, but I'll put a notability tag on it. Hope you'll dig something up. --Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Randykitty: See the hidden comments in the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Those are a start, but mostly in-passing. BTW, I have no time to check this, but are you sure that Project Innovation was on Beall's list? One of those book references mentions it from the early 90s, way before predatory journals became an issue. Also, their journals seem to be subscription-based and Beall would not put such a publisher on his list. Siging off now, have some work to do in RL... --Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup, see the archived version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You deleted my edit on the plank distribution. I am a researcher in atmospheric science, dealing primarily with exoplanets. I work with blackbody spectra often and I consulted two textbooks before changing the equation of spectral radiance in wavelength space. I realize now that I did not cite a source, which I will fix.

The equation that was on the Plank's law page was clearly incorrect and can be verified by integrating the two equations over there respective domains, or by simply checking units. The point is that replacing all your 's with 's still leaves you with a function that is power per unit solid angle per unit frequency, not unit wavelength. Zakrahn (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about an edit you made to pink-necked green pigeon - if you're going to remove a citation that is directly referred to in the text - wouldn't it make more sense to remove the fact too? The statement is specific enough that it can only be supported the the original citation, so if that isn't admissible why leave it in? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Yes, I missed this. I think I read it as 'it is commonly studied' instead of 'it is so common that in one study'... I'll remove the remainder of the passage if you haven't already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, why did you make edits like these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? These books are both volumes of a two-volume set, covering different periods of time; they do not have "issue numbers" (whatever those are in the context of books). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a bug, it should only do that for journals, not books. I'll report it at User talk:Citation bot. I'll double check the recent edits, but feel free to revert any that you see. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: See User_talk:Citation_bot#Converts_volumes_to_issues_for_books. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Does it really make sense to change journal names to use periods as punctuation between parts of the names, as you did in Special:Diff/929455683, when the citations are in Citation Style 2? In that citation style, these become the only periods in the citation, and logically bind more tightly than the commas in the rest of the citation even though in almost all circumstances commas bind more tightly than periods. If it were Citation Style 1, periods would be natural, but it isn't. And in the same edit, why are you repunctuating the Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society but not repunctuating the Journal of Combinatorial Theory, making the punctuation inconsistent? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It showed up as an inconsistency in WP:JCW. Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series A: Pure Mathematics and Statistics is was a redlink, Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society. Series A. Pure Mathematics and Statistics was not. I assumed the later was correct since that's what the DOI says the journal is. Personally, I'd truncate at Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series A. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I created the redirect as a stylistically valid variation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so now I can change it back without messing up your reports? Thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Another of your recent edits seems a little odd. Not exactly problematic, but something you might want to adjust your script for in future: see the second-to-last change in Special:Diff/929462057. It's a conference proceedings that was published as a special issue of a journal (as sometimes happens), and previously just listed the proceedings title. Your edit added the volume and issue numbers of the journal but not the title of the journal itself. It doesn't work to have contribution/title/journal parameters all set, so I guess the choices are contribution/title/series (pretending the journal is really a book series) or title/department/journal (pretending the title of the book is really a department within a journal). I think I prefer the formatting for title/department/journal but I don't really have a strong preference for this situation. (Also the ACM digital library link for that entry is kind of useless, just a catalog entry, but it was there before and your script didn't change it.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Not really a script, I just run the bot on pages with certain issues, sometimes TNT'ing GIGO stuff (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks) and see if it does anything crazy. If it doesn't, I save. I don't really conduct a full citations review. In this case, all I wanted to fix was journal = International Journal of Computer and Mathematics which is the wrong name of the journal. The rest is User:Citation bot, with minor tweaks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wu experiment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reyk -- Reyk (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Those details on those cites are nowhere else to be found and when authors are from ISRO and information cited is non-controversial containing just basic details on project scope and technical specs of hardware, I don't think these should be removed on a whim but considering what is information is being cited and I would like these to be discussed before removing. And these references are much better than any lay media reports cited elsewhere in these articles. ISRO related technical information is rare to get hold of especially when all their newsletters have been lying frozen for ages and they officially don't provide such information.  Ohsin  04:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's late here right now, but I'll have a more detailed reply tomorrow. However I will point out it is quite... weird to restore those cites while tagging them as predatory, which marks them as unreliable and not to be cited. Especially when the passages they are meant to support can be cited to non-predatory sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well my intention to tag was to suggest to reader that there is an issue with reliability. And cited technical information is extremely scant on IDRSS/IMS bus for example and for Chandrayaan-2 anything before 2012 is not desirable on current payload as whole campaign went through major reconfiguration, so it is better to have recent cite from same authors who have published same thing earlier in legit journals which is also referred next to it.  Ohsin  04:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crypt of Cthulhu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crypt of Cthulhu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Headbomb, following your successful request at WP:EFN, edit filter management access has been added to your account. Please review WP:EFM prior to making changes. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool beans. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Welcome to the cabal, Headbomb. Guy (help!) 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I'll still need to bother you for this, apparently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, yes, for edits to the interface page. But JoJo fixed the last one, I think those will be turned around quickly.

Maybe we can fix it by transcluding a template? Guy (help!) 10:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That'd be pretty smart. {{Filter 891}} would be as good a name as any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you edit {{Predatory open access source list}}? If so I'll move it to the name you suggest. Guy (help!) 10:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, and transcluded. Do you have Template Editor rights? I think it would be wise to apply some protection to the template. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you do. Applying Template Editor protection. Please confirm you can still edit - at which point we're good to go I think, unless anyone feels I should move the template. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It's all fine here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Headbomb,

My name is Jonathan Kush (https://www.umassd.edu/directory/jkush/) and I am the instructor for a course wherein the final project is for my students to work on improving a Wikipedia page related to course concepts. One of my students (Mdavis9031) recently edited the Employee Relationship Management page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_relationship_management). Shortly after their edits, you reverted their edits, noting that they cited a predatory journal and copied material. Obviously that's a serious matter if the students did that for my course. As the references were permanently removed, I have asked my students to provide me a list of their references to compare to their writing. In the list they provided me, I don't see any references to journals mentioned on Beall's List (https://archive.md/6EByy). Nor have I found any direct evidence that they copied material inappropriately (I ran it through TurnItIn which found nothing). I was hoping you could let me know what set off red flags when you saw their edits. I appreciate your work as a Wikiedian!

JonKush (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cloud1900: Beall didn't only list journals, he listed publishers as well. In this case, doi:10.5923.j.hrmr.20170702.03, from Scientific & Academic Publishing. As for plagiarism, I was hasty in my judgement. I saw a familiar layout without much formatting, which is typically a sign of copy-pasting. I realized afterwards it wasn't a copy-paste job, but it was still sourced to a predatory source, and has other issues (such as WP:SYNTH/WP:ESSAY), so I didn't revert myself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 11:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m a bit late on this, but why was this reverted? It has a lot of Monopoly jokes.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Because while it has a reference to monopoly, it is not a humour piece. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb. I refer to your edit here: [1]. I am assuming good faith. Can you please explain what makes Problems of Education in the 21st Century a predatory journal? I'm not familiar with the journal, but I read the actual article and it looks very above board/doesn't make any outrageous or self-serving claims etc. Even if the journal doesn't have the greatest reputation I don't see that as a reason to automatically ditch the entire source (and all the very valuable information I was using it for) alone; has there been a hard and fast ruling specifically made on this journal in the past? If not, I'd prefer to ask for a third opinion on it. Let me know your thoughts in the meantime. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Scientia Socialis is a predatory publisher, and is both listed in Beall's list and Cabell's blacklist. It does not have a reputation for fact checking and its journals are, as such, not reliable sources. The scholarship contained in it may be true (either because someone sane got duped into publishing there, or because of a broken clock thing going on), but WP:Verifiability, not truth applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, well that's certainly a shame, because as a subject matter expert on prison education I know about half the things I sourced to that article definitely are true, and I see no reason to believe the other ones aren't. Oh well, guess I'll try and have to find a better source then. Thanks for your prompt reply. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, a shame. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Since you participated in the discussion on Wikipedia Books I herewith inform you that a decision has been taken.

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_176#Suppress_rendering_of_Template:Wikipedia_books Dirk Hünniger (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)