This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Freoh (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 9 February 2023 (→No personal attacks: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:47, 9 February 2023 by Freoh (talk | contribs) (→No personal attacks: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| User | Talk | Archives | My work | Sandbox | Resources | News | Stats |
|---|
|
|
Y Daily run finished without issue! (As of 17:09, 14 Jan 2025 
Victor Weisskopf
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)
- @Kablammo: Victor Weisskopf did not die before he was born. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Good point; my apologies. Will replenish my coffee and correct. Kablammo (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deletion of all references to IslamQA
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)
- 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)
- @Iskandar323 and Louis P. Boog: Take it to WP:RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Help with user script
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)
- @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)
- 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)
Boole's Rule
I have explained at Talk:Boole's rule#Ubale source why I believe this source is acceptable under Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Predatory journals. Please explain your opposition there before reverting the article again. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have raised the issue, and mentioned your opposition, at Misplaced Pages: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)
- Replied there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Avoid reverting during discussion
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)
Nomination for deletion of Template:List of mesons
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)
Help?
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)
- What error are you seeing? I don't see any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Seem Jonesey95 got to it first. The issue was that you had
|url=status=liveinstead of|url-status=liveHeadbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)- I wish it was simpler, but I appreciate you both coming to my rescue. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Seem Jonesey95 got to it first. The issue was that you had
Citing sources
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)
- 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)
Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)
No personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. I don't appreciate the comments you made recently about me and Tjlafave. — Freoh 14:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)