→Topic banned: +re |
|||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
:::Hey, sorry, I never saw your original reply. To answer that question, it applies to [[WP:BROADLY|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, [[User:Swarm|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 15:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC) |
:::Hey, sorry, I never saw your original reply. To answer that question, it applies to [[WP:BROADLY|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, [[User:Swarm|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 15:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::[[User:Swarm|Swarm]], thanks. Like this? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rule_of_the_shorter_term&diff=871026489&oldid=871024213] [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 13:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC) |
::::[[User:Swarm|Swarm]], thanks. Like this? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rule_of_the_shorter_term&diff=871026489&oldid=871024213] [[User:Nemo_bis|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:LINKVIO]]s, not from [[WP:CITEHOW|citing sources normally]]. So, I do not interpret the TBAN as completely banning you from including [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Handling links in citations|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 [[WP:CIR|competence]] to differentiate between uncontentiously linking to sources and linking to websites that are hosting sources in violation of copyright. Does that make sense? [[User:Swarm|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 00:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Help Request for WP article about MDPI == |
== Help Request for WP article about MDPI == |
Revision as of 00:28, 30 November 2018
{{open access}} and |doi-access=
Regarding this edit, are you aware that you can use |doi-access=free
in the template instead? − Pintoch (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have updated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access#Goals and {{Open_access}}. Feel free to change the wording if necessary. − Pintoch (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way, I notice Help:Citation_Style_1#Registration_or_subscription_required says "Links inserted with |url= are expected to be free to read by default". Was there already a discussion about replacing such links with oadoi.org targets? --Nemo 17:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but I'm not sure what you mean. That the template automatically generates a oadoi URL when no
|url=
is provided and a|doi=
is? Headbomb has been pushing for automatic URL generation based on access status for a while, that is similar but not identical. (I've added this page in my watchlist so we can continue the discussion here, so that Headbomb can follow too.) − Pintoch (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)- That would be appropriate too, but it's something to be fixed in the template itself. I was thinking of removing and replacing the |url= parameter when it contains an URL which is redundant with the (publisher) DOI link and closed access. If there is some agreement for this we should perhaps first fix Citoid so that it doesn't add such URLs. --Nemo 18:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would make sense. Detecting a posteriori if a URL is redundant with a DOI does not seem completely trivial by the way. I'd like to bake that into OAbot of course. − Pintoch (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- The easy case is that you make a HEAD request to doi.org and the Location is the same as the URL in the |url= parameter, but at the same time oaDOI considers the DOI closed and the DOI is in the |doi= parameter. Yes, that makes up to two HTTP requests per citation. --Nemo 19:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would make sense. Detecting a posteriori if a URL is redundant with a DOI does not seem completely trivial by the way. I'd like to bake that into OAbot of course. − Pintoch (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- That would be appropriate too, but it's something to be fixed in the template itself. I was thinking of removing and replacing the |url= parameter when it contains an URL which is redundant with the (publisher) DOI link and closed access. If there is some agreement for this we should perhaps first fix Citoid so that it doesn't add such URLs. --Nemo 18:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but I'm not sure what you mean. That the template automatically generates a oadoi URL when no
- Thanks. By the way, I notice Help:Citation_Style_1#Registration_or_subscription_required says "Links inserted with |url= are expected to be free to read by default". Was there already a discussion about replacing such links with oadoi.org targets? --Nemo 17:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Relativistic trolley paradox
Hi Nemo, I wonder why you did this. As far as I can see, this is someone's private work with hardly any reference in the literature: Google Books and Google Scholar. See also User talk:DVdm#eprint link. Were you contacted off-line by one of the authors perhaps? - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Re: Phabricator
No problem :-) Ah yes, Mmodell has talked about in answer to a question on Quora, right here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-Phabricator/answer/Mukunda-Modell?srid=38DRN. Would a third-party source be preferred, or should I keep the primary source and add this source onto it (have both sources)? SamanthaNguyen 21:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
adding free to read links
If you are going to add free-to-read links to citation templates that have |subscription=yes
as you did with this edit, don't you think that you should have also removed |subscription=yes
? By leaving it there you are telling readers that the external links associated with that citation are behind paywalls. Perhaps you should tweak your bot to fix that.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Cite journal/doc does not seem to agree with your interpretation of the "Subscription required" note: it can as well apply to the DOI link, even if other links are open access. This is demonstrated just two lines above by a citation which has both a "green open access" icon (for PMC) and a "Subscription required" note (for the doi.org link). If you were right about the meaning of the parameters, the template should remove the "subscription required" note whenever a green open access identifier is provided.
- You're right that the note might be misleading, but to make sure that the community agrees with you I suggest that you propose to change the behaviour of the template accordingly. Nemo 15:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I presume that you refer to §Subscription or registration required. In that documentation section, particularly §§Ambiguous access parameters is this: "If the restriction applies to an identifier, these parameters should be omitted." The rationale for that is given in §§Access level of identifiers where, in the first sentence, you will find: "Links inserted by identifiers such as
|doi=
are not expected to offer a free full text by default." Documentation, of course, is never as good as it could be / should be.
- I presume that you refer to §Subscription or registration required. In that documentation section, particularly §§Ambiguous access parameters is this: "If the restriction applies to an identifier, these parameters should be omitted." The rationale for that is given in §§Access level of identifiers where, in the first sentence, you will find: "Links inserted by identifiers such as
-
- In the time between the posting of my first comment in this topic and the time of writing this post, I have removed all
|subscription=yes
from §Journals and done other improvements; it was your edit that brought those issues to my attention.
- In the time between the posting of my first comment in this topic and the time of writing this post, I have removed all
-
- There was an RFC regarding access-signalling icons that included the proposal to deprecate
|subscription=
and|registration=
. That RFC, one of a pair of related RFCs, was written in such a way that editors and the closer could not make much sense of it. While the RFCs were in the writing phase, I attempted to get them simplified and to have them run sequentially rather than in parallel. I was not successful. If one is to believe the closer's comments, editors supported deprecating the 'old' (|subscription=
and|registration=
) system. See Aspect B3) Deprecate old system vs support both old and new systems. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- There was an RFC regarding access-signalling icons that included the proposal to deprecate
- Thanks for your message, I'll look into the matter in more detail later as now I'm focusing on another task. Nemo 16:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the RfC closure, documentation and template behaviour again. Thank you for pointing out that the "subscription required" note is only supposed to apply to the publisher-provided URL for the DOI. As the documentation says, these notes are intrinsically ambiguous, so I don't see a way for me to avoid user confusion in the case of mixed statuses that you rightfully denounced. I can only expect the users to take those notes with a grain of salt or ignore them.
- I'm wary of removing information added by other users and I definitely I cannot fight with the template, so I'm deadlocked. Based on logic and the direction set by the RfC closure you mentioned, I think it would be uncontroversial for you to make the template ignore the "registration" and "subscription" parameters whenever a more precise information exists (i.e. an X-access= parameter or a green OA identifier which already adds a green lock, such as arxiv or pmc). If the template is changed this way, I'll be happy to start filling the more precise parameters and even removing the "hidden" ones after a while. Nemo 08:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message, I'll look into the matter in more detail later as now I'm focusing on another task. Nemo 16:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Adding links
Please, verify that a link is alive before adding it to an article: I had to revert the majority of the links that you have added to the articles that I watch, because the page does not exist, or is unreadable. This is WP:Disruptive editing. D.Lazard (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry. I normally check all links before adding them but today I was testing something else with the tool so I forgot to check some. Thanks for looking into them. --Nemo 16:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I reviewed several dozens of my edits again and I believe I fixed all outstanding errors. Sorry again for the trouble and thanks for the help pointing it out. Nemo 08:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
COPYVIO
In this dif you added a link that violates WP:ELNEVER. Please don't do this. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- paste reply here that was left on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your note re [1]. What reasons do you have to think that [2] is a copyright violation? The author can have a contract addendum with the publisher, a specific license or other statutory rights. --Nemo 16:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, WP takes copyright very seriously. If you continue violating the COPYVIO policy, you will be blocked.
- This is not a matter of "can have", it is a matter of what is verifiable.
- The paper at the journal's website is not OA
- The policy of the journal in which that paper published is here and says:
Access policies: After publication, authors may post the accepted version of the paper on the author’s personal Web site and are provided one referrer link that can be posted on a personal or institutional Web page, through which users can freely access the published paper on the Science Signaling site. Science Signaling follows Science policies and allows deposition of the "accepted version" of peer-reviewed content (Research Articles, Research Resources, Reviews, and Protocols) into the NIH PubMed Central or other PMC International repository 6 months after publication, in accord with the requirements of the funders NIH and Wellcome Trust, provided that a link to the final version published in Science Signaling is included. The "accepted version" is the version of the paper accepted for publication after changes resulting from peer review, but before editing by Science Signaling editorial and copyediting staff, image quality control, and production of the final PDF. No other types of content may be submitted. Research Articles and Research Resources will be freely accessible at Science Signaling 12 months after publication.
- Zenodo's terms of use puts the onus to ensure that content is OK on the uploader.
- Where do you see there, that it is OK for the author (or somebody else) to have uploaded the actually-published paper to Zenodo? Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I hope you were not trying to insinuate that I don't take copyright very seriously.
- Could you clarify what parts of the policies you believe to state that the non-copyvio status of the link targets needs to be verifiable? The very section you linked says something very different.
- For some ways the authors can retain or gain the right to share the published version beyond the standard policy, please read for instance: [3] [4] [5]. --Nemo 16:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I still recommend that you avoid hasty conclusions on the copyright status of things based on incomplete information; as you saw, such a practice can lead to mistakes. --Nemo 23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Just came here because of this[6] which appears to be a link to a copyright-violating copy of a journal article - and see the above. This looks like a big problem. If there is some permission granted to publish these pay-for things on the open web, you need to furnish WMF with proof of that permission, otherwise this looks like out-and-out copyright violation. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not hosting nor uploading or otherwise providing that copy. The responsible way to proceed, when one has a doubt, is to contact the author so that they can check their contracts and if necessary revise their archived copies. I happen to have already done so for the author of [7], but you can easily be helpful in reducing copyright violations even if you are less familiar than me with publisher policies: just point authors to the respective records on https://dissem.in/ . Thanks, Nemo 19:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- You are linking to it, which you should not. That published article is copyright Blackwell (*not* the author) and they advise they need to be contacted for permissions. The onus is on you to ensure you are not linking to copyright-violating resources, and if permissions do exist they need to be lodged with the WMF. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but I'm afraid this is an inaccurate description of the matter. --Nemo 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- You are linking to it, which you should not. That published article is copyright Blackwell (*not* the author) and they advise they need to be contacted for permissions. The onus is on you to ensure you are not linking to copyright-violating resources, and if permissions do exist they need to be lodged with the WMF. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This template spells it out. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I assume you just wanted to inform me of the existence of Template:Uw-copyright-link, because the text doesn't apply to any edit of mine. I'm definitely not «Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright». --Nemo 20:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- For the article I mentioned, you are linking to a site that violates Blackwell's copyright, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This will need escalating. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There is no reason whatsoever to blindly assume that CERN or the author of the article would be violating copyright. Civil systems exist for rightsholders to have their rights respected, and I don't think your second-guessing here is one of them. Are you sure you're not getting emotional due to personal connections to Blackwell? You may want to sleep over it. --Nemo 20:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- An incredibly flippant reply to a potential serious problem. Anyway, now at AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is indeed potentially serious, which is one more reason we should be careful and follow the advice of established policies such as what I linked. I hope you will consider it. Nemo 20:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- An incredibly flippant reply to a potential serious problem. Anyway, now at AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There is no reason whatsoever to blindly assume that CERN or the author of the article would be violating copyright. Civil systems exist for rightsholders to have their rights respected, and I don't think your second-guessing here is one of them. Are you sure you're not getting emotional due to personal connections to Blackwell? You may want to sleep over it. --Nemo 20:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- For the article I mentioned, you are linking to a site that violates Blackwell's copyright, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This will need escalating. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I spent the weekend replying to a few dozen authors (mostly users of academic social networks) who might not have noticed certain restrictions of their publishers' policies, to help them follow open access best practices. In the coming days I'll probably have less time for editing as I use spare time to check some sample files authors have sent us to ask whether they're ok for green open access. Nemo 07:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
AIN
I have started a thread about the zenodo.org links at WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
NonFreeWiki
How to use NonFreeWiki? 175.140.90.128 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's a proposal, you cannot really "use" it. Ask at m:NonFreeWiki and please stop writing me, thanks. Nemo 05:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
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 [8]. 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)
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. RivertorchFIREWATER 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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, –Davey2010Talk 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I am asserting nothing, I am merely noting what the publisher asserts. Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- There's nothing copyrightable in that PDF, as far as I can see. --Nemo 16:14, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [9]? And to non-academic websites, like [10]? Nemo 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Swarm, let me know if I have to continue unlinking my citations as in [11] 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? [12] 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)
- Swarm, thanks. Like this? [12] Nemo 13:18, 28 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, let me know if I have to continue unlinking my citations as in [11] or what. Nemo 07:37, 27 November 2018 (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)