Welcome to my talkpage! Click here to leave me a new message at the bottom of my talk page. If I leave you a message on your talk page, please reply there. You can put ((re|Headbomb)) at the start of your message to make sure I see it in case I have unwatched your talk page. Likewise if you leave me a message, I will reply here, and will typically use ((re|USERNAME)) to get your attention. Headbomb User:AAlertBot status: Y Daily run finished without issue! (As of 18:44, 2 Sep 2024 UTC) [refresh]

14 August 2024 In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems In focus: Twitter marks the spot News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear? Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird Humour: I'm proud to be a template Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Spanish flu, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us if you see other problems than the ones already mentioned here:

• Template talk:Sticky table start#Expanded table is not sticky. Also, background colors removed

So we can fix, or improve it. Please comment there. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other things, it also got rid of the color-coding. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you please comment there if you saw any other problems. I am not the editor of ((sticky table start)), and I don't want to have to try to explain what you are seeing to the template editor: Jroberson108.

Any other observations there would be appreciated. It is a new version of a popular template, ((sticky header)), and the problems are still being worked out.

I updated the link to the talk page section. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This journal: https://search.worldcat.org/title/cainozoic-research/oclc/51307519 has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species). I don't see anything about it being predatory online (though it's apparently published some articles about predatory snails), but I thought you might be interested in looking into it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headbomb. Regarding this: the Verywell sites are in fact *unjustly* banned. They don't belong on the spamlist, because they aren't spamsites.

In December 2018, someone reported three of the four Verywell sites to WT:SBL, citing a tiny shred of evidence that quickly falls apart on inspection. An admin than impulsively banned the sites. Ever since, noone has unbanned them, either because of gross stupidity, or due to a conspiracy to keep them banished. I have evidence of both.

I see you are an admin. Can you remove those sites from the banlist? Thanks! Have a nice day, Manifestation (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First I'm not an admin. The place to raise these issues is that WP:RSN. But you've tried that several times and convinced few people, and admitted that Verywell is often "not the greatest". There's already other more reliable sources here, so I fail to see why Verywell is needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People weren't convinced because they didn't pay attention. You can't convince people who are close-minded.

The spamlist should not be used to ban popular press sources. If you ban Verywell, then you should also ban: Men's Health, Women's Health, Psychology Today, Healthy Children, ScienceDaily, Healthline, Medical News Today, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mail, Investopedia.

Guess what? None of those websites are banned. It is advised against citing them, but you can still link to them.

I'm struggling to figure out how I can get people to listen to me. It will definitely take a lot of time to collect the evidence I need. Time which I don't have right now... - Manifestation (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SureAI is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SureAI until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgelRM (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]