Please leave messages on the English wikipedia rather than on this page.
en:User talk:Headbomb

Template Wizard script available for testing edit

Hello. I'm contacting you because you voted for the Infobox Wizard in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey.

The Infobox Wizard has gotten an upgrade - it's now a Template Wizard which works for infoboxes and all other templates. The feature is being developed as an extension (which will allow for localization) but there is a prototype user script which works well.

The Wishlist Team would love it if you could take a few minutes to try the Template Wizard prototype script out and give us feedback on whether it lives up to your expectations. This feedback will help build the script into an extension. To get started, add the following to your Special:MyPage/common.js -

mw.loader.load( '' );

The Template Wizard will show up as a puzzle-piece icon in the 2010 WikiEditor. You can click on the icon to insert a template. Your thoughts are needed on whether it makes sense for the wizard to be available for all users by default or if there should be a preference for it. If it's a preference, what should the default be? Please leave your feedback here. Thank you! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commond deletion bot requirements edit

I'm contacting you because you supported the Commons Deletion Bot proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist. The Wishlist team has finalized the draft specifications for how the bot will work, and are seeking review in confirming or discussing the plans for the bot. If you have some time, please take a look and leave a comment. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Community Wishlist Survey edit


You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProjects edit

Hi Headbomb

Are you sill involved with making tools for wikiprojects? Sorry, I am not permitted to post on enwiki. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More or less. Not really sure I understand the question. Headbomb (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is discussion on Simple Wikipedia about wikiprojects. Many oldtimers think wikiprojects are not a good fit for Simple. It would greatly help to have you dispel some of the myths. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WikiProjects are generally good, and I would recommend them to any large Wikipedia with a significant userbase. If you don't have the userbase, there isn't much point in dividing the work by topic, and I don't keep up with Simple Wiki enough to know what's the state of things over there. The general advice I'd give is if you want WikiProjects, make sure you're making WikiProjects that make sense for the scope of Simple wiki. Maybe you have enough folks interested in science in general, but not enough folks interested in physics specifically. The first will succeed, but the second will be ignored. Headbomb (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Headbomb, not sure why you believe wikiprojects depend on large participation. I was checking out and I see the project was set up less than a week ago and only 94 editors have been involved to date. Is there something I am missing? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I was personally against setting up WP COVID as being too ephemeral, but what is a "large" participation is a very relative thing. If you have 30 people interested in WikiProjects in general that's not a lot. If you have 30 people interested in a single WikiProject, that's pretty respectable. Headbomb (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick resonse. I personally think we need more people involved in diferent aspects of COVID-19. It is a huge worldwide problem and even commercial sites, such as facebook, are changing things in response. But lets agree to disagree.
The reason I came here is that I know you were very instrumental in setting up tools for wikiprojects on enwiki, and I personally believe those tools are fabulous (note to self: watch using Trump language on wmf sites). It seems to me that if a few , knowledgeable eidtors could set up a project so quickly, it really does not take a lot of manpower to keep it being useful once it has been set up. Am I wrong? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2019 - Section Name in Diff edit


The Community Tech team (WMF) has officially started the project for Section Name in Diff, the #9 wish from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey!

You previously voted for this wish, so we are now contacting you. We invite you to visit the project page, where you can read a project analysis and share your feedback.

We hope to see you on the project talk page, and thank you in advance!

-- IFried (WMF), 14:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article alerts edit

There a lot of information in for english-wikipdians interested in working on COVID-19 articles. But what about other language wikipedias and other wmf sister-projects, such wikicommons, wikinews etc. Any thoughts on how wikimedians can take advantage of the same tools? Thanks in advance, 18:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources you can maybe add to unreliable.js edit

Hi, @Headbomb. I'm sending this here because I'm proxy blocked on enwiki and I'm not confortable making my ip public. I have made a list of websites you could add to w:User:Headbomb/unreliable.js.

Feel free to strike ones that you have added and maybe add a comment.

stuff at add

FROM w:WP:RSP (most are yellow): edit

Extended content (“no consensus” on RSP, but should not be used for facts) (anadolu agency, yellow on general topics, red for controversial issues on RSP) borderline source. Some subject matter experts (w:WP:BI) and ( is already listed, see w:WP:CHINADAILY) one below w:WP:CSMONITER (“no consensus” on RSP) (daily mirror, “no consensus” on RSP) (“no consensus”, but contributor pieces are generally unreliable) (yellow or red for on RSP depending on what is being used) (Hope Not Hate, yellow on RSP, one row below w:WP:THR)
Some are missing from w:WP:IMC. (w:WP:IBTIMES; other URLs are present on the script) (Marquis Who's Who) (w:WP:MASHABLE; sponsored content is generally unreliable, anything else is used with caution) (one row below w:WP:MBFC) and (media research center, generally unreliable) (one row below w:WP:NEWSWEEK, avoid sponsored content and contributor pieces) (The Skeptic's Dictionary) (w:WP:TECHCRUNCH) (w:WP:VICE) (Vice Media) (one row above w:WP:WAPO


Extended content not on RSP, but considered generally unreliable according to past discussions on w:WP:RSN and w:WT:VGRS. self published, see w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive (BTW, self published/user generated sources should probably be its own category) unreliable per w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive self published w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#RfC:The World News ( reliable for own opinion only per w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#RfC: mixed responses at w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Is a reliable source?.
Links associated here have been blacklisted
w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 365#RfC: Srivastava Group unclear reliability, RFC at w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: see previous discussions] w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#Headline Planet
Tibetan Political Review, see this discussion w:WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360#OffGuardian at w:WP:VG/S#Unreliable sources user generated various issues] may need further review, but discussions have not been promising (article on it is still a stub, "no consensus" at w:WP:NPPSG. Likely should be in "borderline source" category) and "no consensus" at w:WP:NPPSG yellow at best, maybe red, see w:WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387#Bounding into Comics and previous discussions closed as "additional considerations apply", see w:WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Sky News Australia generally unreliable tabloid, see w:WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#The Daily Telegraph (Sydney). Not to be confused with the reliable UK daily telegraph
independentaustralia.netw:WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#RFC: Independent Australia likely yellow per w:WP:NPPSG
See this discussion 🡺 w:Special:PermaLink/1116534869#Military fansites w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Self-published website claiming that soccer players are gypsies
w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387#Reliability of Filipino tabloids: Hataw! and Pilipino Mirror suggest an investigation into this one, particularly for politics. Claimed vaccines are racist, uses pseudonyms sometimes w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive
True North News
w:WT:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 30#True North News - Reliable or not reliable? yellow maybe?

OTHER: edit

Extended content
Wikihow, rationalwiki,, creationwiki and maybe some others, for obvious reasons
w:Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources
lists of sources by reliability for specific WikiProjects (w:WP:VGRS, w:WP:A/S as examples), maybe you can include the situational/unreliable ones
w:WP:Record charts/w:Special:AbuseFilter/554. The charts to avoid should probably be in the pink section, unclear what the deprecated section is. Maybe the deprecated ones could be in pink or yellow?
Several essay sites, with and being just a few examples (looks self published, although I can’t say that for sure. Probably pink, and at the very best yellow.)
National Report, Peace Data, TruNews, EPtoday. All egregious disinfo sites. (Edit
EPToday is blacklisted),,,, common mirrors of wikipedia; circular. Maybe add some other mirrors that frequently pop up?
978-1-105 (apparently, many of these belong to
w:User:GeneralNotability/unreliable-rules.js blacklisted website fringe news site found in sponsored content, with typical sponsored content title, but actually has quite a few citations. I suggest you do an investigation, but it is possible that and are completely different. also found in the sponsored section. Can’t be sure if either of the above two sources have only sponsored content, but this one has 12 citations in article space, so do a small check and there is no pain in adding it. Titled as entertainment news/gossip website. The headline I found is "[Gallery] After 220 Years Two Brothers Finally Found The Oak Island Treasure". do an investigation, but this site doesn’t seem that promising to me. Maybe yellow? Briefly discussed in some places such as RSN. satirical news source

Edit: also, check out for more stuff you should propable add. 15:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also: (lower quality and less reputable, although you should use your own judgement for that) (tech blog) (sponsored garbage) (also sponsored) (obvious)

And the sites listed here: 13:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]