16 May 2024   News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure Comix: Generations Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Why do you not think that his death merits a mention at the end of a sizeable article? Kablammo (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kablammo: Victor Weisskopf did not die before he was born. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; my apologies. Will replenish my coffee and correct. Kablammo (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, brainfarts happen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at your deletion of all references to IslamQA in Spirit possession and exorcism in Islam, (references I'm responsible for), and wanted to appeal this policy. My case (see debate with User:Iskandar323) is that whether or not you call IslamQA self-published, it is heavily used [see https://www.similarweb.com/website/islamqa.info/#ranking (judging from the substance of the fatwa questions and demographics, used predominately by pious Muslims), so that WP:USEBYOTHERS is relevant. Rather than being deleted on sight, I'd like to propose it always be used with the qualification along the lines of "according to the conservative Salafi fatwa site IslamQA ..." --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEBYOTHERS is based on proof of usage in other reliable sources, not proof by pageviews. But to the broader point, surely once you are at the stage where you are caveating a source with "according to the conservative Salafi fatwa site IslamQA ..." it would simply be much better to look for a source that you can simply present in Wikivoice without such extraordinary caveats? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323 and Louis P. Boog: Take it to WP:RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Headbomb, I wanted to ask if you could help me with a new user script I created, see User:Phlsph7/MarkUnreferencedPassages and User:Phlsph7/MarkUnreferencedPassages.js. I have little experience with user scripts so I thought it might be a good idea to have a more experienced script editor have a look at it before I make regular editors aware of it. The script is intended for articles and drafts. It marks passages that lack references. It would be helpful if you could take a short general look at whether the script does what it says in the documentation and whether there are any obvious problems in the code. Since your useful script User:Headbomb/unreliable is also concerned with verifiability, I thought this might be a good fit. But if you are not available, I would also be happy if you could point me in another direction where I might be able to get some feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: I don't have much time at the moment, so I would suggest checking WP:SCRIPTREQ for help. I may have more time at some point in the coming weeks, but it's not a guarantee. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of WP:SCRIPTREQ. I'll try my luck there. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained at Talk:Boole's rule#Ubale source why I believe this source is acceptable under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Predatory journals. Please explain your opposition there before reverting the article again. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue, and mentioned your opposition, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Use of Predatory journals. Please respond there to help generate a consensus instead of potentially edit-warring on the article itself. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I notice that you deleted content from Science that was under discussion at Talk:Science § Vague fringy sentence in lead. I have restored the status quo version. Could you try to follow the BRD cycle and discuss before making changes that have already been contested?      — Freoh 18:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of mesons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all is well with you. I try so hard not to bother you with my technical issues, but I cannot figure this one out. I am positive it is some kind of coding problem with a foreign language, (seems to be triggered by ù) but we all know technology is above my pay grade. I looked at URL encoding, but literally, it just makes my head swim and I cannot comprehend what language it is speaking. o.0 On this article I just started it doesn't like the url. I copied it from the article link and then tried from the wayback link. Neither gets rid of the error code. Can you help? I truly appreciate your expertise. SusunW (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What error are you seeing? I don't see any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seem Jonesey95 got to it first. The issue was that you had |url=status=live instead of |url-status=live Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it was simpler, but I appreciate you both coming to my rescue. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I notice that you recently added a category to Plum pudding model that had previously been challenged. Don't forget that the verifiability policy applies to categories as well.      — Freoh 02:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling real hard to see WP:AGF behaviour here. That the plum pudding model model is obsolete is patently obvious and has been so since Rutherford discovered the nucleus in 1911 or so. (And this is cited before you try to get me on a 'technicality'.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]