User talk:Nemo bis

Archive

Comizi o altro

Wikipedia si basa sul consenso, ma se non si discute non si può dire che il consenso esista solo perché si è sempre fatto così. A volte non lo si trova a volte, invece, sì anche se la comunità è molto restia ai cambiamenti. Basta discuterne con rispetto delle opinioni altrui e io non ci vedo nulla di male. E poi si sa, i tempi cambiano, quando era piccola mia madre era normale per l'insegnante fare inginocchiare gli alunni discoli sui ceci, oggi uno schiaffo al proprio figlio in pubblico può costare la detenzione. Ciao. --НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Free to add links

Hi, thanks for "free to read" links for journal papers like [1]. However, please make sure that they are to full papers, not abstracts or extracts. Some editors will get misled otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I generally check for such errors, but the occasional mistake or misclick can slip in. Do you have a specific example in mind? --Nemo 20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, maybe you meant JRC. Will check those more carefully. --Nemo 20:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio redux

In this edit you posted a link to a PDF hosted on zenodo.org which appears to be the final-form PDF article bearing the publisher's copyright message - the link to the original article shows it is behind a paywall with the publisher requiring payment for access and permissions for sharing. Do you think this is okay? (Add: incredibly, reading above I mow see this is exactly the same link which was raised here before. If you cannot provide a satisfactory explanation this will need to go to WP:AIN). Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

First, I'd like to give you an opportunity to state any conflict of interest you may have in this matter.

A copyright statement doesn't automatically mean that the author doesn't have the right to redistribute the article. Many authors sign an addendum to be able to do so, for instance. If I remember correctly, Wiley/Blackwell also encourages authors to ask permissions for the archival after the fact. Do you have specific reasons to believe the author may have been wrong in asserting their right to deposit this paper? Again, if you really believe there was a mistake and you care about resolving it, please write someone who can do something about it, e.g. the publisher, who can check their contracts and contact Zenodo if a removal is in order.

As for your point about repeat discussion, I'm sympathetic to the idea that specific controversial links could be put on hold, and I've coded a proof of concept to do just that. It would be useful to hear about the demand.

Finally, I encourage you to use a more accurate and less hostile language with fellow users. If I were not a wiki dinosaur with a thick skin, I might get rather annoyed by the suggestion that one of my edits was a "copyvio redux". This act of linking is certainly not a copyright violation in itself. I can only suppose that by "copyvio" you meant what the author did on Zenodo (on which see above), but again I want to give you the opportunity to clarify, qualify or retract this statement. --Nemo 21:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no WP:COI. As was said at the last WP:AIN we don't make casual assumptions about copyright: YOU are responsible. It is highly unlikely any publisher would grant unlimited free republication rights to their pay-walled article, for obvious reasons. See WP:COPYLINK for why linking to violations is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't make casual assumptions about copyright. --Nemo 09:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Hello. Help expand the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.116.102.56.175 (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I prefer other topics. --Nemo 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Elsevier

Hi. I see you've changed Elsevier's description from Information & Analytics, back to Publishing. The company is indeed still involved in publishing, but it has been describing itself as an Information company for a few years now, so this should be reverted. Possible sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2016/02/25/elsevier-ceo-using-unique-data-sets-and-analytic-processes-to-maintain-competitive-edge/#18247a3979c2 http://www.drugdiscoverytoday.com/view/47475/elsevier-launches-mendeley-data/ thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw that, but I couldn't locate a discussion on the talk page and there wasn't a source. We don't automatically portray entities as they self-describe, we use the definitions which are prevalent in the relevant literature. --Nemo 09:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OAbot

You ran a bot an a bunch of pages, generating many pages. This is not something you should do from your regular account, since it then becomes impossible to filter out those changes from human changes on watchlists and similar, among other issues. Instead you should create a new account for running bots, have it registered as such, and use that. See WP:B. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, not generating pages but making edits. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Bot policy#Assisted editing guidelines: "In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, are more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes.": do ask on the BRFA page before running OAbot on large numbers of pages again. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess you are following established practice. I was not pleased to not be able to filter out the OSbot edits from my watchlist. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagging the edits as minor would work: good idea, thanks. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Addressing your concerns about portals...

Dear Nemo,

Thank you for your message on my talk page. You inspired me to go back to the RfC and read your posting there.

I am grateful that you "oppose deleting any of those pages, per m:Keep history". That sentiment also helped to save portals from deletion, so I thank you very much.

I noticed, at the RfC, that you felt that portals were pointless, risked being POV due to few editors editing them, and that efforts to maintain them were better spent on other areas of Wikipedia such as categories. And that you agreed with the reasons presented by Primehunter ("Poorly maintained, rarely useful, few views except the eight portals on Main Page, not worth editor resources).

I thought you might be interested to know that there is a serious effort underway to fix the problems you are concerned about...

So far, 80 editors have joined the team.

The Portals WikiProject, which was dormant for years, is now a beehive of activity.

We have analyzed the situation and have determined the following:

The portal namespace has around 150,000 pages, but only about 1500 portals. The vast majority of the pages are subpages with a single static content forking article excerpt in them. That is an incredible number of pages to maintain by hand for so few rendered pages (the displayed portals), and far too much work for pasted copies of existing material. This is by far the main problem of the portal namespace.

By migrating the excerpt function to the portal base pages, most of the 150,000 subpages can be made obsolete and removed. And by using selective transclusion to display excerpts from articles (rather than the whole article as in regular transclusion), copying and pasting is no longer needed, while the versions displayed always remain current.

Using tools laying around the Wikipedia community, and by building some others, every section of portals can be automated at the portal base page, and therefore migrated from the respective subpages.

We've even found innovations in certain portals that were never communicated to the wider community.

Here are some of the advancements we've made so far:

{{Transclude lead excerpt}}, with supporting lua Module:Excerpt. This template is being employed in the intro sections of portals to display a fresh excerpt of the corresponding root article, with extraneous material stripped out (notice banners, hatnotes, infoboxes, etc.). You can select by parameter the number of paragraphs, or even which specific paragraphs (by their numerical position), to display.

{{Transclude random excerpt}}, also supported by Module:Excerpt. Using this template, you can provide a list of articles, and the template automatically displays an excerpt from one of them. So, rather than copy and paste excerpts, you can use this template to present as many excerpts as you would like.

Categories can be migrated from their portal subpages using {{#tag:categorytree|{{PAGENAME}}}} on a portal's base page.

Associated Wikimedia can be migrated from subpages using {{Wikimedia for portals|species=no|voy=no}} on a portal's base page. .

The following efforts are underway:

Updating Portal:Contents/Portals (we have about 100 entries left to add out of the 400 existing portals that were missing from this page).

Upgrading/migrating the portal intro sections with selective transclusion.

Upgrading/migrating the portal selected article sections with randomized selective transclusion.

Migrating Associated Wikimedia to portal base pages (about 1/3 done)

Developing {{Transclude selected current events}} for use in portal news sections. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Alternative to Wikinews

Developing ways to automate all the other section types.

Designing a one-page portal model, that requires zero subpages.

Basically, our position isn't all that different from those wishing to delete all portals, as we desire to delete 99% of the pages in the portal namespace. That's a 1% difference.

As for cost in effort, we are developing ways to leverage editor resources, by decreasing the amount of editing that is required to maintain portals by reducing portals to a single page and by automating the functions of portals. So, what editors will mostly be needed for in the future, will be to provide page names on what is to be displayed, and parameters to adjust how the content is displayed. Wikipedia itself will do the rest, automatically.

Morale is high, and the participants are having a lot of fun working with each other.

So far, a couple of those who supported the removal of portals, have joined the effort to improve them and how they are maintained.

There is still a lot of work to be done, but I wanted to let you know that we are up to the task.

For a more detailed account of what has happened so far and what is being worked on, see our Newsletter archive. We're already on issue #6! You can also see the flurry of activity happening on the WikiProject's talk page. The excitement is contagious, so I hope you decide to pop in for a visit.    — The Transhumanist   21:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Kaye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Windows 10

I have no objections to you unarchiving recent talkpage messages but your unarchiving of a 2017 message is nonsensical - You've had over a year to reply .... so as such I've removed that section and have undid your unarchiving on the archive subpage - If you have an issue with the articles content (or whatever the IP concern was) please start a new section, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you point out any guideline or reason why I should create a new section to answer that message rather than just recover it from the archive? Thanks, Nemo 14:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

CanonAEDE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CanonAEDE. Since you had some involvement with the CanonAEDE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pichpich (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morning Joe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alex Moffat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

re: User:Nemo

Wasn't sure if to reply on my talk page (where it's logical, but unless you're watching it you wont get a notification of response, I think?), or here where notification will happen. So I chose here.

Anyway - name is all yours. (I probably wouldn't have thought to check with anyone if I'd noticed it was available, but despite being an early adopter, I'm not actually that active and certainly had never thought to check again since, plus I didn't keep it as a signature shorthand. I think you've more claim to it than I do! :) --.../NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 12:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

my edits using Oabot

• I appreciate your work in making this bot. I am really happy that this oabot exists. I would love to take this bot to mrwiki, where I contribute mainly. Is there any possibility to use this bot for mrwiki?
• Hopefully you must have seen most of my edits using oabot, but I am still confused about validity of many links I have added using bot. So I read the talkpage and got more confused. where i can get information on pre,post, published articles? and probable list of the sites which qualify our criteria as non-copyvio?
• I will wait for your reply. Sureshkhole (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz : open access to scientific publications

Hi Nemo, I would like to know why you deleted my part about the open access. I may admit some parts were not neutrals. Could you give me some explanations about your modifications, what did you find not neutral about my post? I'm sure we can find an arrangement that can please us both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clément.IAEPO (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It was not neutral because it took the point of view of open access advocates without saying it. There is another section on OA in general on that article, have you seen it? --Nemo 06:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I will mind your opinion and try to present things in a more neutral tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clément.IAEPO (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The reference to planS also has nothing to do with that section. I'll let others deal with your edits, there's no rush. --Nemo 15:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The section is called "Open access legacy". Plan S is in line with swartz's values of open access. It's important to remember someone like Aaron Swartz who fought for open access when a project like this is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clément.IAEPO (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't feel it's relevant. There's the page open access for that, we cannot copy all of it into Aaron's page. --Nemo 08:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sci-Hub

You replaced a description sourced to reliable independent sources, with a characterisation drawn from the site itself. That is a major problem in this case as the site is acting illegally, regardless of how fervently its supporters might wish otherwise. Please do not do that again. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where you get the idea "a characterisation drawn from the site itself", but I agree we can add a third party source to the first sentence (there are several others). Your version failed WP:LEAD. --Nemo 11:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

More copyright violation?

here you are adding a link to an article which was apparently downloaded from a/c holder at Manchester University, and which bears a copyright notice from OUP with a request to contact them for permissions. Is this a legit. link? Alexbrn (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is in the public domain as USA government work. Not all publishers keep track of the status in their systems, hence the misleading copyright statements. --Nemo 07:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

How can I check that? The article says it is copyright the author, but this particular PDF apears to be publisher IP (and is behind a paywall). Or is the PDF in the public domain? Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The PDF is in the public domain. You can check with a FOIA request to NIH, or just ask the author. --Nemo 08:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed OUP's permissions department for clarification. I've also (just from my watchlist) noticed https://zenodo.org/record/1229944 being added, which is a paywalled Elsevier PDF bearing a copyright notice. Is this final-form PDF really legitimate to host freely? Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing copyrightable in that PDF, as far as I can see. --Nemo 16:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If you actually believe that, then you understand not even the most basic ideas of copyright or intellectual property in general. EEng 22:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This comment is not particularly constructive. Can you elaborate on what copyrightable work you see in that document? Nemo 22:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In your post above, your link behind the text nothing copyrightable is threshold of originality. Whether the work is under copyright or not for some other reason, the idea that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality is preposterous. EEng 22:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. Indeed you are right, and that's not what I was claiming. So far nobody has challenged that the article per se is PD-USGov. What Alexbrn seems to be arguing is that the PDF contains additional work which is in fact copyrightable, presumably the layout or something similar added by someone other than the author. To this I pointed out that putting text in two columns etc. does not generate (new) copyright because it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Do you disagree with this? Or do you think Alexbrn meant something else (I would appreciate any help to understand his thought process and what he bases his conclusions on; he has not provided much reasoning so far)? Nemo 22:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. An author listing himself as affiliated with a federal agency doesn't automatically mean the work comes under 105. It's way more complicated than that. EEng 23:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I never claimed it's automatic, hence the suggestion I made below to verify that if wanted. But there's a very good chance that NIH works do fall under that, which is one reason Wiley and Springer now address the matter specifically for them. I wouldn't blindly upload such a file to Commons, for instance, but that's quite different from saying that we should by default assume it's a copyright violation; est modus in rebus, we should avoid extremism. As far as I can see, nobody has yet presented any reason to "reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". I'm open to any such finding, although I'd be surprised because they are responsive (zenodo.org/support) and they have policy (about.zenodo.org/policies/, "Content must not violate privacy or copyright") and process (about.zenodo.org/infrastructure/, "Legal status") to prevent it. Nemo 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, I'm not here to debate zenodo. I'll just point out again that you started by saying this pdf didn't the threshold of originality, which is certainly not true, and that what is or isn't PDUS can be quite complicated. EEng 00:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Howso? The work has copyright asserted by Academic Press (acquired by Elsevier) in the normal way. Who or what invalidates that, in a manner that leaves the WMF safe? It looks like zenodo hosts infringing uploads (as previously discussed at ANI). I am concerned we are seeing a repeat of last year's problems, from the admittedly small sample I've seen. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Asserting copyright does not have any legal effect, there's nothing to invalidate. We see incorrect copyright statements all the time and we deal with them in the usual way when uploading them to Wikimedia wikis, cf. commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The position of the WMF. --Nemo 16:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, but what makes this an "incorrect copyright statement"? It seems in every respect normal to me. Is it just your opinion that it's "incorrect", and do you take that as enough to allow it to be linked? Did you consider the links you added on a case-by-case basis? I'm trying to get clarity here as this will need to go to WP:ANI again. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I considered my links one by one. The work is {{PD-USGov}}, the layout added by the publisher is {{PD-ineligible}}. So there is no reason to believe there is any copyright infringement by Zenodo. Such a file would also be acceptable on Commons, copyright-wise, if it were in scope, but note that the act of linking has significantly different legal consequences. I'm sad if you think that opening a discussion at ANI is needed, but it's your decision; I just recommend that you read up on copyright practices in the Wikimedia projects and copyright case law of USA and EU on your own, to save time for yourself and other users. --Nemo 17:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No reason? The "reason" to believe there is an infringement is that the publisher is asserting copyright. Zenodo makes no checks, so far as I can see, on the user uploads to the site. On the other hand we just have your amateur opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean with your reference to "amateur opinion"? What does this imply for the way we run Wikimedia wikis, with processes such as commons:COM:DR and Wikipedia:Files for discussion? --Nemo 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It implies editors cannot just high-handedly assert legal opinions as though they are trump cards in disputes, as you seem to be doing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. What about your asserting that there is in fact copyright on this PDF? --Nemo 19:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I am asserting nothing, I am merely noting what the publisher asserts. Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's duly noted, but it's not relevant to our links. Why do you claim it is? It's just your opinion against what I see as our established practices with regard to links and public domain material. And I acknowledge your opinion, without resorting to inflaming language such as "high-handedly assert legal opinions as though they are trump cards in disputes" or "On the other hand we just have your amateur opinion". I hope you can retract such unnecessary statements. --Nemo 19:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You are being obtuse. It is not "just my opinion": as I said, it is the assertion of the publisher. On the other hand your "what I see as ... " is just your personal inexpert opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What assertion? The boilerplate paraphernalia are just that, they don't assert anything about whether that's a USA government work. That publisher has simply chosen not to expose such information. I'm still curious what's your take on commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The position of the WMF. --Nemo 19:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Nothing about that document shows any evidence that it is in the public domain. Given your rather vocal opposition to the mere existence of publisher rights on academic articles, you should not be presuming to divine whether a document that is asserted to be copyright by the publisher, is in fact not copyright, based on "go do your research". That is a very dangerous position and likely to lead to you being blocked, especially when tajken with your WP:POINTy removals of publisher links to papers in Elsevier journals across multiple articles. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The evidence is in fact present in the document. I'll ignore, once again, the ad hominem in your message. I suggest to pay attention, to avoid looking like an involved administrator with an axe to grind. --Nemo 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic banned

Hello, this message is to inform you that you have been indefinitely banned from adding any URLs to citations. This restriction has been logged here. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards,  Swarm  talk  19:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Does that apply to new citations, like [2]? And to non-academic websites, like [3]? Nemo 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, let me know if I have to continue unlinking my citations as in [4] or what. Nemo 07:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I never saw your original reply. To answer that question, it applies to any citations, and any URLs. No, you don't have to unlink your citations, but doing so will look better to the community in terms of demonstrating good faith. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards,  Swarm  talk  15:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, thanks. Like this? [5] Nemo 13:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually misunderstood your question, so disregard my last reply. It isn't quite that simple. You are prohibited from adding any URLs to any existing citations. This was a measure to prevent you from continuing to add WP:LINKVIOs, not from citing sources normally. So, I do not interpret the TBAN as completely banning you from including normally linking to sources when adding new citations. However, inserting sources that contain any links that could even remotely be considered linkvios would still be TBAN violations by extension. You're expected to have the competence to differentiate between uncontentiously linking to sources and linking to websites that are hosting sources in violation of copyright. Does that make sense?  Swarm  talk  00:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I've nevertheless proceeded with an abundance of caution in the last few months. Speaking of which, I understood that a specific BRFA is unaffected. Nemo 11:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Swarm, almost one year has passed: is it too early to request the topic ban to be lifted, and is WP:AN the most appropriate venue? The closure of the discussion did not specify a minimum time.

Also, a number of the links being discussed (to Zenodo and elsewhere) were about (presumed) public domain works like File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf, which has since been kept in a deletion request on Commons. As long as I cannot link such PDFs on external websites, I understand I'm not banned from linking a copy of them hosted on Commons, as the requirements for hosting (precautionary principle) are significantly more cautious than the requirements for linking (WP:LINKVIO). However, we're talking about thousands of works and I'd prefer to avoid such a scale of (manual) uploading and editing unless it's supported by consensus. What would be the appropriate venue to get clearance for such an action? Nemo 07:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Help Request for WP article about MDPI

I noticed your comments on the WP article of MDPI, which currently features two minor issues very prominently in the lead. The inclusion on Beall's list happened years ago and MDPI was soon after removed. The information on the data breach is misleading, as we publish the e-mail addresses of all authors and editorial board members on our website already (the way it is now provides the impression that sensitive/personal information was leaked, which is untrue). Any help you could provide to edit the page would be much appreciated. As I work for MDPI, I cannot edit the page myself. It is difficult to comprehend why a leading open access publisher, which is striving to foster open science, finds such opposition on Wikipedia.ErskineCer (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

First Solar

Hello~ I saw you reverted the commas I added to the First Solar page. I'm used to a comma being placed in numbers with 4 digits or more. Is there a standard in the electric power/solar community in which 4 digits does not require commas? Thank you and looking forward to your feedback. ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Radionics is NOT EMT

Why did you change my edit? Can you find ANY evidence that Radionics is EMT??? Can you explain one of my objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.237.48 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The revert was not my doing. You should explain your rationale on the talk page or, at a minimum, in the edit summary. Nemo 08:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that's unexpected! Thank you. And thank you NIH and PubMed too, I guess. :-) Nemo 20:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion notice - Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019

Hey there! I'm Psantora. There is a move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). - Paul^T+/_C 16:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

re: Zenodo links

In all honesty, if I was involved in a Zenodo-blacklisting discussion, I was not very involved, and I don't remember it well. I also am not very familiar with where and how to request it to be unblacklisted, through I could probably do it if I have time and motivation. Alas, I am afraid both are lacking for this issue right now - but I'll try to review such a request if you make it and comment there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law

Sorry, I'm no longer a law student and I'm not a solo practitioner so I can't sign the brief. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heidi Hautala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transparency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

APCs

Thanks for bringing up that info on fee-free publishers. The Article_processing_charge and Open_access#Article_processing_charges both need some updates if you're interested. I've actually been trying to go through the OA article to help update it (particularly images) so would be interested in your input! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Redundant url/remove accessdate

On the article Neutron you removed a redundant url (I believe since doi, etc. gave equivalent links). I just note that the "accessdate" should also have been removed, since there was then no url requiring it. Just a suggestion! Bdushaw (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for checking and for the suggestion! Yes you're right, I usually manage to do it but sometimes my eyes cross (if you know what I mean) and I miss some parameters... Luckily, I believe helpful bots are working on Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL gradually. Nemo 21:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

And by the way could you please avoid edit comments like "refuso" when you remove urls. Much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes that was a typo itself. :) (Dropdown selection failure.) Nemo 07:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, regarding your edits of references. I noticed that in some edits you removed useful information, such as in [6], while in others (such as the first reference in [7]) you removed the URL without providing the DOI, so there is no link left. Can you please explain what is the reasoning? --Ita140188 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. Probably it was a copy and paste failure: in such cases I have to manually search the title and add the DOI but sometimes a string gets lost in its perilous journey across a legion of tabs, imperfect memory, bickering wikitext and hazardous scrolling. Nemo 14:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

P.s.: Se ti interessa l'open access o la ricerca connessa a Milano, ho un progetto interessante coll'università degli Studi di Milano.

Redundant url (...?)

Hi, it seems that a bot you used is removing url links from many (tens? hundreds?) scientific journal citations, with a generic "redundant URL" motivation (just an example: [8]). But, in this case, the Template:Cite_journal#URL field is not redundant at all.

As you can read in the following content guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources, both "DOI and/or other identifiers" can be included (please note the "inclusive OR"). Although at a first glance they may look similar, actually they are different.

It's not clear to me if there is a general agreement on the criterion used to determine whether a url is redundant or not (at least, in the case of Journal articles). If so, you can discuss about changing the "Citing_sources" guideline and the Template:Cite_journal#URL field. Meanwhile, before using this bot again on scientific journal citations, please wait until a common decision in this regard is made. Thanks.Eepavan (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on the perceived advice from citation guidelines: are you saying you see the URL as an identifier?

In those edits, "redundant" means that the URL doesn't add anything to the identifiers (usually the DOI). It's a long held practice to move identifiers from the URL parameter to their specific parameter, for instance we don't keep a link to PubMed both via the url parameter and in the pmid/pmc parameter. Nemo 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the term "Identifier" is not the most appropriate for the url linking to academic databases... but I used this term according to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Journal_articles. However, yes, the main question of this talk concerns the simultaneous use of both URL and DOI in scientific journal citations.

Here: Template:Cite_journal#Examples, we can find plenty of examples -some of them may be misleading-, where both url and doi are included in the same citation.

Maybe, the right criterion should be: “use url (and/or doi) ONLY if the article is free, otherwise use DOI only". Is it correct?

So, concerning the bot you're using, is it applying this rule? Is it checking if papers are FREE (or the provided url's are linked to pre-prints or abstracts) before deleting the url fields? Thanks. Eepavan (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the check is merely whether the DOI and the URL go to the same place. One problem with keeping such redundant URLs by publishers is that they regularly get broken: when the URL is broken, we can no longer know what the user wanted to achieve by including it, or what should be put in its place. We are fixing only now some Wiley and Elsevier URLs, about 10-15 years old, which got broken many years ago. It's a pain and a useless one when the DOI and other permalinks are provided just for the purpose of linking those resources. Nemo 14:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

But the URL bears no relation to such a problem (if the DOI is still there)

I'd support this change if, and only if, both URL and DOI resolve to the same location. Is that the case?

I'm also concerned that our presentation of these is certainly different. With the |url= parameter, we link from the source title (See [9]). With DOI alone, we don't. Many readers are unfamiliar with DOI and while they might recognise a linked title as a useful link for them, they'll ignore the unfamiliar DOI.

If we're going to make this bulk change (was it discussed anywhere?) we should have first changed the behaviour of {{Citation}} et al. so that the linked title was preserved, even without |url=, if there's |doi= or some other means to generate a URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm only removing URLs which point to the same place as the DOI (there might be mistakes but I'm not aware of any). There is no bulk change here, this is what has been already done since forever on the majority of citations by countless users and bots.

I agree that it would be nice for the template to linkify the title more often: for instance, most users are adamant that Handle System links should stay in their "hdl=" parameter with the respective identifier, but I personally cry a little when a direct link to a PDF is lost. This was discussed recently. Nemo 15:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

From a rapid check of some changes that have been made today... it seems that the applied criterion is to try to prevent future issues, rather than fixing only older, broken urls.

However, although both urls and doi are usually pointing to the same destination, the url path is visible (everyone can see it in the Wikicode); instead, the "doi-to-url conversion table" (sorry, I don't know the technical name) is not accessible to everyone (or am'I wrong?) I'm thinking on the problem in this way: if you have two links and one get broken, it's easy to recover the temporarily-missing information; but if you remove one of them -a still correctly working link-, and the other one fails... (some weeks ago, I’ve found some broken doi as well! Yes!) Can we really prefer doi? I just want to recall that doi links switched from http://www.doi.org/... to https://doi.org some time ago (I know: older doi are still working fine, otherwise, it will be easy to run a bot...). But, can we be sure that, between 10-15 years, doi will be always more reliable than some up-to-date publisher's database? I think that, if not diversely decided, and while the behavior of both fields isn’t exactly the same (as previously pointed out be User:Andy Dingley), on my opinion, further removing url (if a doi exists) should be done on the basis of a common agreement, and after updating guideline and template. Eepavan (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The DOI is supposed to be permanent and I don't know of any major publisher intentionally breaking previous DOIs. DOIs also survived a number of transfers between publishers. So, yes, they're definitely more reliable than any other publisher URL. Nemo 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

DOIs are generally more persistent and reliable than publisher urls. This example from Template:Cite journal § Examples illustrates that persistence:

{{cite journal |last=Aries |first=Myriam B. C. |last2=Newsham |first2=Guy R. |last-author-amp=yes |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |url=http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc49212/nrcc49212.pdf |format=PDF |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021 |access-date=October 18, 2013}}

Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858–1866. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. Retrieved October 18, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

In the above example, the url is dead but the doi is functional.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Marking edits as minor

Grouped from above

On the same topic, I wonder if these couldn't be marked as minor edits, as they are filling up watchlists with items that don't need attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Please, no. I understand about cluttered watchlists (mine sure is), but the last thing we want is to have substantive edits fly in under the radar because they're marked as minor. The help page is quite properly clear about added refs and external links not being minor. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't think adding a parameter to a ref constitutes adding a ref, and it's barely a link either. If it's going to be "major" then it is ESSENTIAL that a) the target is full-text, and b) there is no existing full-text link such as doi= or url= (or even jstor=, actually). In other words, if you're going to add stuff and force the rest of us to see it then it had better be vaguely useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there are good arguments both ways. Adding identifiers is often a minor maintenance (for instance adding a PMC identifier where there's already a PMID), but changing the main link target of the citation can sometimes be considered a non-minor change. If the target is a pre-print or post-print, the content may also be different.

All in all, considering that the English Wikipedia has a relatively low tolerance for non-minor edits being accidentally marked minor, even when there's a 5 % doubt I prefer to mark non-minor, so I feel the current state of things makes sense. However, this is just my opinion: it's easy to change oabot if there is a consensus (or at least not a consensus against it). --Nemo 21:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just piggybacking here, but I've been seeing a lot of your edits on my watchlist, and they all looked good from what I saw at least. That being said, do you think you could tag them as minor edits so they don't fill up watchlists? Not a big deal either way, but at least when I'm using AWB for similar edits, I would make sure they're marked as such for that reason. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting question... In the past I got complaints when I made changes to URLs and marked them as minor. I'm therefore erring on the side of caution, which means to not mark them minor. Nemo 15:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I was kind of wondering if that had been the case. Normally bot edits for something like this are supposed to be marked as minor, especially when it's just removing a redundant url. I'd just direct them to Help:Minor_edit#Exceptions that explicitly says that bots usually have the bot or minor edit flag (or both). I'm not sure what goes in to adding the flag with the setup you're using, but the bot flag would essentially do the same thing without worrying about minor edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well that's the matter: users who don't consider those minor edits tend to be the same who don't want them to be performed by fully automated bots, which is why I'm doing them manually in the first place (and checking every changed line before saving). Nemo 15:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's going on now as it's technically not a formal automated bot. Either way, you're definitely in the minor edit territory since it functionally does not change the content (only the internal template). It's up to you, but this seems like a case where someone is going to raise a fuss no matter what regardless of the actual validity of marking it as minor. At the end of the day though, no one can really fault you for following the minor tagging guidance, so I'd say go for it, but it's up to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

redundant url

See this edit and its results. Remember that when deleting |url= values it is also necessary to delete |archive-url=, |archive-date=, |access-date= when these are present. There are other parameters that are dependent on |url= having a value so a preview of the edited page can be helpful.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I generally do that but sometimes its gets lost. Can we have someone run citation bot on all such pages to fix such leftovers? The duplicate URL removal sometimes times out, but such problems with parameters are fixed quite consistently. Nemo 15:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters

See ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› the category. It was mostly empty this morning but whatever it is that you are doing appears to be adding redundant parameters to cs1|2 citation templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I can take care of it in the next few days if nobody beats me at it: it's only a matter of running citation bot on that category; I cannot use the category feature, though, so it's easier for someone else to do. Nemo 15:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A few were done by bot, the rest should be finished now. Nemo 13:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

DOIs to sources that change

I understand and accept fully the correctness of removing access dates in citations with DOIs that go to an unchanging version, e.g. of a published paper. However, this is not always the case. In particular, the IUCN Red List DOIs go to pages that have been updated. (The way the Red List website was set up changed in 2018; see here). doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T63562A12681695.en previously went to the 2008 version of the assessment for the species, archived here. Now the doi and the url //www.iucnredlist.org/details/63562/0 redirect to the 2019-2 version of the Red List entry for the species, at //www.iucnredlist.org/species/63562/12681695. But the old and new websites are not exactly the same, even though based on the same original assessment, and there's no guarantee that the new one won't change further. So for IUCN Red Lists, the access date matters, as does the URL if given with a trailing "/0" because this seems to redirect to the latest version. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A DOI is supposed to always point to the same document. Reusing the same DOI for a radically different document, as you seem to imply a new assessment may be, would not be a very good move. However, even if doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T63562A12681695.en switched target from https://www.iucnredlist.org/details/63562/0 to something else, what matters for the citation is that the old URL and the new both go to https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/63562/12681695 . If the document is revised, the "date" field should contain the date of said revision: are you sure we can't extract it appropriately? On the CrossRef metadata for this item I see that the print date coincides with the date of "last assessed", but maybe the date of deposition or indexing coincides with the URL changes you're talking about? Nemo 10:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, DOIs should resolve to exactly the same document, but although I can't find the discussion right now, we have discussed the problem with the IUCN Red List website at some biology-related wikiproject in the past. The evidence seems to be that although the DOI always resolves to the same URL, this has not always pointed to exactly the same web page. The web page seems to be based on the same dated assessment of the same species, but the details have been presented differently in different versions of the Red List, and it's not clear whether the web page always has exactly the same information.

More recent assessments don't have a DOI (e.g. //www.iucnredlist.org/species/44303/124142268), so the best course of action for Red List citations seems to be to remove the DOI and retain the URL and the access date. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

How the information is presented should not matter for a citation, unless the citation is used to support a claim about the page design. Librarians might say that the citation refers to an expression of the work (the document identified by the DOI, which derived from the assessment) rather than a specific manifestation of it (a specific URL or set of HTML or PDF or whatever carrying the document).

You say it's not clear whether the information remains consistent across URL changes, but then I don't understand why assume that IUCN did the wrong thing and reused DOIs for significantly different documents. Again, could you please help find which piece of the CrossRef metadata coincides with the most recent update, so that we can see if we can use it? Finally, if there are worries that IUCN surreptitiously alters information in its tables without stating so, that's something way more important than how to cite their website in our articles: we should make sure that the entire website is regularly archived on the Internet Archive if it isn't yet. Nemo 22:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought "PR" stands for press release

I can now see your confusion. I didn't mean "public relations" but "press release", which the source is. I don't see though why we need to use a primary source for that when there are plenty of secondary sources available (e.g. [10] [11]). Do you? Regards SoWhy 05:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing urls

Can you mark your automated URL-removing edits made with WP:UCB as minor? IntoThinAir (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see #Marking edits as minor. Note that none of my edits is automated. Nemo 12:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Citation bot usage

Hello! Thank you for your offer and yes, I am using the "Citation bot" and reviewing article by article. Now I have almost 5,000 editions in Spanish Wikipedia and in the future I want to translate one specific article (my first) into Italian, maybe you can help me with that too. As for the english Wikipedia I am extremely interested in the subject of computers, although this does not limit me to touch other subjects. I will inform you if I have any problem using the "Citation bot". Thank a lot!--Jimmy Olano (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

My talk page

I like to delete stuff in my talk page after I viewed it. May you stop repeating the same thing to my talk page? Thanks. Antonín Leopold Dvořák (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

DOI vs. URL/WEBSITE

Sorry for mistaking your edit at Tellagraf for having been done by a BOT. Please look at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DOI_bot_without_WEBSITE_and_URL:_bug_or_feature?. Pi314m (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Manual DOI Source?

Is there a way to use the search capability of OAbot on a DOI ref rather than a page? It would be useful when tidying up a page without having to save intermediate versions or running over a sandbox I've looked around but none of the other cite tools has the option.Quuux (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)