User talk:The Interior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Antarctica (6), Laubeuf Fjord, Webb Island.JPG
Cordialgreetings1x pix.gif
In memory of User:Franamax
Hello, The Interior. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.KatieBU (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43[edit]

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Rumor has it that you are able to assist editors with getting regular unlimited access to JSTOR articles... I want in! What do I have to do? For years I have been relying on others to look up materials for me using the Resource Exchange, but would much rather be able to do this myself (for all the obvious reasons). Let me know. Thanks!! KDS4444Talk 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

KDS4444, thanks for getting in touch! There are definitely still accounts available. I'll get you to post a request to WP:JSTOR. I'll be processing another batch tomorrow. The Interior (Talk) 18:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-44[edit]

05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Revi, thanks so much! Hope you have a spooky halloween! The Interior (Talk) 18:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-45[edit]

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR list of journals archive/current[edit]

Hi. I'm returning to content-creation after a six-month semi-break. Mainly, I'm interested in working on health and medicine. I had access once before to JSTOR but found that the vast majority of journal articles I wanted weren't available - either because the journals weren't included or the current issues weren't. I don't want to take a scarce subscription if I'm unlikely to use it. Can you point me to a list somewhere of the journals included in TWL JSTOR subscription, and whether access to the journal includes current issues, please?

Are there any other free subscriptions available through TWL that have wider and more current access to health/medical journals? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, glad to have you back to article work. JSTOR is stronger in the humanities than it is for health sciences, and you're right, there is a fairly long "embargo" (or what they call the "moving wall") on most of their titles (usually 2-5 years) Here's the full title list, with the moving walls (I believe we have access to all packages, but as I don't have a subscription myself, I'd have to inquire about specific ones). As far as good, up-to-date health content goes, are best current resources are BMJ and Cochrane, but it looks like you've found those. Sign up for a De Gruyter account, they have some medical titles, and we have unlimited accounts with them, so no loss if it isn't that useful to you. We are hoping to partner with Sage Publications soon (fingers crossed), who have more offerings. There are two other partnerships in the works that will have good medical content, but I shouldn't spill the beans until we have something in place with them. Best way to keep track of new offerings is to watchlist the journal page, and subscribe to the newsletter. The Interior (Talk) 01:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for this excellent service. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-46[edit]

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Question[edit]

Hello The Interior, I was approved for JSTOR (Thank you by the way!) and was wondering if I was supposed to receive an email to create my account or if they're coming up in the future. Regards, --Church Talk 20:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Very soon, Church! Just want to finish up the current applications, then sending. The Interior (Talk) 20:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
WMF takes a lot of heat, and sometimes deservedly so, but the work you do in helping content creators get access to scholarly resources to help improve articles is of unparalleled importance, and for that, I say thank you -- this is one program in which WMF ought to continue to invest! Go Phightins! 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Go Phightins!, thanks so much for this! I very much agree about the importance of the library project, and will exert the minimal influence I have to keep it on the priority list at the Foundation. The Interior (Talk) 21:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR approval[edit]

Hey, thanks for approving me for JSTOR. What is the next step, though? Will I get an email with more details? Llightex (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed Llightex - email will be coming. There is a more detailed explanation of the process on the JSTOR page, in the sidebar beside "New Applications." The Interior (Talk) 13:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR - postponed approval[edit]

Hello The Interior, thanks for your message on my talk page. What you suggest sounds very fair - I was thinking myself after making the request that I personally might find it hard to approve on the basis of what I've already done. I'll improve the articles as far as possible from books and internet sources, and see how my edit count looks after that. Thanks for your consideration. Crinoline (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Crinoline, thanks for understanding my position. Please do stay in touch, and if you need help finding sources, I'm a librarian and always happy to help. Don't forget about WP:RX, where, if you know the author/title/date of an article you want, you can request it there, and a helpful person will try to get it to you. The Interior (Talk) 13:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi The Interior,

I recently remembered about JSTOR, and found myself Approved according to the archive, but I have never received any email. I assume you tried to send mail to Hym411. Can you send it once more to this account (here)? Thanks!  revimsg 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the emails haven't gone out yet, waiting on our bot operator. But I will make sure yours goes to your new account name, -revi! The Interior (Talk) 13:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello. you moved me to Wikipedia:JSTOR/Approved but you haven't marked me as Approved and you haven't sent any email. Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Madman, pinging! Yoav, emails are coming. The Interior (Talk) 20:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-47[edit]

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello The Interior. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:JSTOR, how has the information circulated?[edit]

Can I ask you one thing? or maybe just a suggestion, you decide. I just feel talk would be useful. So, i discovered this page, I didn't know if it had been linked on at local village pump or at it:Progetto:Coordinamento/Bibliografia e fonti, but I was sure I heard nothing of it. I wanted to link it directly on but I wasn't sure I was doing a duplicate or causing a "traffic jam", so I used my knowledge of the users and I selected some of them leaving messages int heir talks.

How do i "know" them? In it:Wikipedia:Novità we list what's new and good enough for the home page. There are two sections: "new articles" (that's easy, we have automatic list to scroll, I don't update it anymore, other users do it) and "recently updated/modified articles", of which I provide 70-90% of the total every week [47] because I have a personal archive of the active profiles and I know where to look. I just have a very good memory, so I am the one who performs this task "easily". I also know the faces in the good article evalutation pages, and as a "co-creator" of the maintgraph (I am no informatician, but 20-30% of the ideas dispalyed are "mine"), together with regular supervision of our monthly "quality festivals" to remove warnings or fix problems, I have a solid overview of the users who perform these tasks constantly.

So I left a message here on to some of the user who can speak English, possibly with some institutional roles, that I know are very active in some area on and sometimes even other wikis. I selected one expert of biographies of artists, one of Ancient Greece, one of Onomastics, one of Chemistry, one of Literature. the first ones popping in my mind, totally random.

I was curious in any case, so today I took a look in the approved candidatures looking for users and I confess, I was surprised. they don't show great ns0-profiles, sometimes not even great overall contribution profiles. 2 or 3 are good, but I could suggest other ones who are definitely more active sometimes in similar areas. I mean, it does not sound as a great allocation of resources, but again I cannot be sure because mine is a statistics performed on a very limited sample.

In any case, I would suggest to put very clear limit of ns-0 and non-ns0 activity if possible, next time. I understand the importance of insitutional roles but it would be better to give powerfull tools to "admins" (or similar instituional users) who are active in ns0 than to "admins" who does not, at least not very often. After all, we are writing an encyclopedia. --Alexmar983 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexmar983 - thank you for starting the conversation. As you point out, the applications up to this point have been self-selecting, and I use only a loose criteria (1000 edits and 1 year experience) to approve or not. Targeted notifications to the users who would most benefit, and make the most use of the accounts, would be ideal - let's talk about ways to do this (for a service that covers a broad range of topics, such as JSTOR, that task is not easy).
In terms of limiting applications to those who have x-number article edits, I think this is a good idea, but one that needs consensus. For that, we should discuss at WT:TWL or m:Talk:The Wikipedia Library.
Thank you for making the contacts with appropriate editors - this is a task that really only someone with deep knowledge of their project's editor base can do well. In terms of notifying editors on other projects, this is something that we struggle with. One solution is to set up Wikipedia Libraries on each project, and have them coordinate messaging as they know how to do this effectively. Would you be interested in helping set up a library? It could be intergated somehow with Progetto:Coordinamento/Bibliografia e fonti, or be a separate project. We have a set of templates on meta that can be easily adapted for each project. The Interior (Talk) 19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thank you for you very "proactive" reply, that's a pleasure. I am not going to start any real discussion now, but fell free to contact me if someone has or is it. I would like to be as neutral as possible. that means I will be happy to suggest parameters which may not be fitting for me, just based on the top editors I have followed over the years. just take in mind that in my experience 1000 edits in ns0 can be obtained by patroller in 1 year. Of curse, creating pages per se doesn't mean anything (I rewrite 1 article in deletion procedure per month, which is not "mine"), so you see, "you" should set up adequate combination not particularly rigid "threshold", IMHO.
I could help you set up something on/for, maybe for next round. You would like me to translate some of the key points, then paste them in "The_Wikipedia_Library/Kit/it" on meta and then show the result to the Italian village pump? It is possible, after all it is just a translation. I am very active in the "information circulation", some of my contact can do things like creating a bot informing all the editors with "good parameters" (ns edit, global edit, recent activities, no "trouble") of the opportunity. I made with other user (including Nemo, you know the name?) about statistics of profiles, it should be very " egalitarian", I will be happy to show results. As you can see I never work alone, that's a good start I hope :)--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

access to JSTOR[edit]

HELLO. how can I have had access to JSTOR FOR WIKIPEDIA. if guide me more simple it is very useful. thanks for helpingm,sharaf (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello m,sharaf! The requirements for accounts are 1000 edits (across different language Wikipedias of course) and an account that is older than one year. Right now you are more than half way there with edits, but you won't qualify until March of next year. So be sure to re-apply then. Regards, The Interior (Talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)