User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

your bias annoys me

that's it. that's the post.

ps. Ayn Rand died on social security 72.134.245.18 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Right to Read inquiry report

Thank you for your edits to this draft. I never knew about predatory publishing, and I am interested in how you spotted it. How can I vet sources to avoid using bad ones like this?

Also, how can I get this draft published? I think it has enough references and you have fixed some problems, so it seems to be in limbo. John NH (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the script WP:UPSD. As for feedback, I'd ask the decliners. 13:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Algebras, Groups and Geometries" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Algebras, Groups and Geometries has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 25 § Algebras, Groups and Geometries until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the ISBN is outside the cite book, maybe there is a good reason

With this edit and adjacent one, you moved an instance of {{ISBN}} from outside a {{cite book}} to inside it. Did you not wonder why someone had done that in the first place? The clue is the date: the book was published in 1923, so no valid ISBN. The one given is for a reprint.

As you did other useful corrections to arXive pre-prints, I haven't reverted so would you clean up, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listing them 'outside' is just as misleading as being listed 'inside'. Either they belong, or they don't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or you add the info that the isbn is of a later reprint, to help the reader get hold of a copy while understanding that the isbn isn't of 1st ed? PamD 14:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case there was ever only one edition. Without looking back at the detail, I'm thinking of a Dover reprint of an out-of-copyright book. Or the original publisher has done a fancy new presentation (as as happened multiple times with Joyce's Ulysses) but it is not a true new edition. Otherwise we could say date=2023 orig-date=1923.

Maybe it is just me being bothered by a message saying ISBN + 1923 = ERROR!!!

But as to PamD's main point, yes I agree that it is useful to indicate that a recent printing exists, that they don't have to search in an antiquarian bookseller for it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh

"The Pullulating Polyps of OMICS" - lovely invective, but not really somethin we should be using as a source for a serious article. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It details the networked/clusterfuck of shell corporations OMICS runs, and does a fairly good job at it IMO. I'm pretty sure it's added to explicitely support one of the names listed, though I can't remember which. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{AI-generated}} tag undo Tag: Twinkle

RE: 09:29, 23 July 2025 Headbomb talk contribs 12,293 bytes +32 Added {{AI-generated}} tag undo Tag: Twinkle

Do you know what is the issue specifically on this page: Association of Musical Marxists because referenced works actually exist?

Thanks in advance. Thelibrarianoflondon (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least sections of it were written using ChatGPT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]