User talk:Headbomb
| User | Talk | Archives | My work | Sandbox | Resources | News | Stats |
|---|
|
|
A barnstar for you!
|
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
| The UPSD tool is incredibly useful. Thanks for making it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
A beer for you!
|
For moving Biomaterials Science (Journal) to Biomaterials Science, I found the link of Biomaterials Science journal was not active in List of Royal Society of Chemistry journals. So I changed it accordingly. Rahul SomanDiscussions - contribs 22:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC) |
- Yup, the updated link was good, but the page was just at the wrong location to begin with, so overall it's a win-win. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
help?
I am sorry to bother you, but you know I am worthless with technical things. I fear that once again some major change has happened in formatting of refs? The last time, you helped me clean up errors that occurred when they decided to remove the ref=harv parameter, but this time, I don't even know what the issue is. I just converted all the sourcing in Elena Arizmendi Mejía's article to work it up to GA. Every single source says "Harv error: linked from CITEREFBeltrán2010" (obviously with the last part varying per author and date). There do not appear to be any errors in the sfn citations nor in the references, but what do I know? As this is the way I routinely format, I do not want to have yet another huge referencing issue. Can you explain what's going on and either fix it, or help me to fix it? SusunW (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- @SusunW: should be fixed. The issue was that the references were in a further reading section, and that's usually a sign that should move those to a proper references section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your assistance and patience with helping me. I am also really, really happy to know that it isn't some completely new technical thing I have to learn and was easily fixed. :) SusunW (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey, man, I'm reaching out to you for some guidance. I added a publicity photo that was sent to me by the record label to Todd Snider's Wikipedia page. I had asked the label for a more recent photo to post to his page and they sent me the one I posted. I have since received this message from a bot:
"Non-free rationale for File:ToddFACPRpic.jpeg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ToddFACPRpic.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)"
I clicked on the link provided, but I'm not really sure what I am supposed to do. Would you use able to give me some guidance on this? Thanks. William D. Money (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- @William D. Money: My suggestion is to check with User:JJMC89 since they tagged it with the speedy deletion template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Headbomb,
So far, this page has been deleted 9 times, twice by me, so I'm thinking that if it gets recreated again, we just let it be. There is no point in deleting this page if a bot keeps recreating it. Just a suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- It keeps recreating it when there's a need for it (which is ~basically once per dump, before I cleanup the compilation). The issue is that when there's no longer a need for it, it still exist in an outdated state and shows up in {{JCW-main}}. Hence the need for deletion.
- It won't always get recreated, we just need to cut down on a bunch of crappy citations enough that when there's an extra 30-40 false positives, they're still on /Questionable5 instead of spilling over to a /Questionable6. We're close to that point, and making decent progress (last dump 491 entries post cleanup, this dump 476 entries post cleanup, a progress of 15 entries) but we're close to the tipping point, so it goes back and forth for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Frontiers Media
Hello Headbomb. Thank you for updating the list of journals on the Frontiers Media article as you did in these edits. I appreciate your effort to make the list accurate and up-to-date.