Headbomb

Dear Headbomb! You removed a peer-revied reference from humic substance wikipedia article.

You are not right! That is an ordinary journal article. It was published in Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences and you can even read the names of the referees:

https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/76978

That was a serous element analytical investigation, you should restore that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sci1972 (talk • contribs)

This refers to this edit, and I stand by it. Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences is journal from the well-known predatory publisher Sciencedomain International. It is not a reliable source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Headbomb, I have previously disclosed my working relationship with Frontiers and that I am making edits with the knowledge of my colleagues. If you're insisting on use of the specific COI tag for all edits, we can discuss that in terms of parity with all other edits to similar scholarly journal pages. But the edits themselves should remain for their factual accuracy. Happy to discuss further. Thank you! Tomciav (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As explained to you both on the warning and at WP:JWG#COI, you are required by policy (see WP:PAID) to have these tags.

You can discuss your proposed edits on the article's talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Headbomb, who are the "both"? I'm the only party working on behalf of Frontiers. Randykitty has yet to disclose their potential conflicts.

As for use of the COI tag — it is indeed the letter of the law. But it's neither used nor enforced consistently across all pages for academic journals. So I'll need to see the community moderate its zeal for selective edits before I annotate every edit with a COI. A public disclosure on the article Talk page should suffice.

All that said, I respectfully request you roll back the page to my edits from a few hours ago. If you'd like to discuss offline I'm tom.ciavarella [at] frontiersin [dot] org Tomciav (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Both refers to "on the warning and at WP:JWG#COI" (there was a typo). RK doesn't have a COI.

As for So I'll need to see the community moderate its zeal for selective edits before I annotate every edit with a COI. , but don't be surprised when you end up blocked.

As for I respectfully request you roll back the page to my edits from a few hours ago. Simply put, no. Your edits are promotional and do not improve the page. If you disagree, you can take it to the talk page, where such discussions belong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 8 § Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications‎ on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edit to Template:Cite simbad/doc, saying the template does not accept all parameters that {{cite web}} does. I just used Module:Template wrapper in {{Cite simbad}} to enable that. May I restore my edit? — hike395 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why should the module support all the parameters of cite web? Why would support for, say, |ISSN= add? Why would anyone to add |via=? There's a reason only those parameters are supported. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies. Your edit summary said "it does not", not that you were disagreeing with the template wrapping. — hike395 (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

At the time that's what I thought, as I didn't see the change, but I've since undone it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stop deleting referenced information as you did here for the second time with the reason being given as "predatory source". The author of the "predatory source", Rafaello Furlan, is the Head of Department for Architecture and Urban Planning at Qatar's largest university and the journal article is uploaded on Qatar University's website. Instead of blindly deleting "predatory sources" from articles you've never contributed to, it might help to use a little common sense and check if the source is reliable first. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rather stop inserting predatory sources as a reference. It does not matter who the author is, this is an unreliable source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Predatory_journal_for_Doha_Corniche. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Apologies for my tone. Is this a reliable journal? I think it could be used a replacement, at least for the "urban majlis" part. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is also a predatory publisher, sadly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Without having looked at them in great detail, I'd suggest sources like doi:10.4324/9781315725468-14, doi:10.4324/9781003156529-10, or doi:10.4305/METU.JFA.2012.2.2, [1] instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the sources - not sure if I can access all of them but I'm sure there are some other reliable sources I could find. I've self-reverted and will try to find a replacement. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just in case you intended the removal of {{nobots}} to be permanent, could you get WikiCleanerBot to respect {{bots-deny}}? Thank you. Ivan (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Иованъ: If WikiCleanerBot is the issue, I would contact the owner at User talk:WikiCleanerBot to explain what the issue is since WikiCleanerBot doesn't follow {{nobots}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply