Archive

Hello! I, Dh.wp ( talk), would like to invite you to join WikiProject Google! We're working on: Writing, cleaning up, and expanding articles about Google, in particular, these articles Putting {{ WikiProject Google}} on the talk pages of articles involving Google, and assessing articles with the template. This helps to categorize articles! Sourcing a BLP affiliated with Google Updating the project page or the portal, and spreading word about the project and more! It seems you might be interested, so please stop by! Thank you.

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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. E Eng 22:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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. E Eng 23:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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. E Eng 00:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply
  • 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) reply
• 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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Hi, after you pinged me I intended to reply if no one else did but then forgot about it until reminded because of the recent thread. Bear in mind I'm not an admin and don't have that much experience in these matters. First, I'm fairly sure AN (not ANI) would be the right place to ask for your topic ban to be lift. IMO 1 year is an okay period to have passed before asking for a topic ban to be lifted. But time is only a minor factor.

More important is that the community believes you have learnt from your mistakes and are not likely to repeat them, in other words, you won't return to the behaviour that got you topic banned in the first place. Your statement and the way you respond to any queries when applying to lift your topic ban helps a great deal. Also how well you've respects your topic ban, and whether you've shown any behaviour that suggests what got you banned is still going to be a problem.

I have to say if you were to ask right now, I would be somewhat concerned by some of your comments like that on ANI that I recently replied to. I'm not saying I would oppose lifting your topic ban, but the impression your comment conveyed is that you still don't understand the importance of respecting the communities view on the need to take care with links to ensure they aren't potential copyvios. In particular, the need to take great care when whoever hosting the link is likely not the copyright holder and the link may be hosted under fair use or some other scenario. There's chance me or someone will ask such a question and you may want to consider how you answer it.

You seem to have a strong view on free content including on aggressively allowing anything that could be fair use or in the public domain. You're fully welcome to your view but you have to understand that many including many strong advocates of free content here view things different from you. While they don't want companies and people to be able to get away with preventing fair use or trying to claim public domain content as their own, they also believe to ensure content is free, we need to do our best to stringently comply with the laws as they are, often including erring on the side of caution.

As for the commons issues, bearing in mind what I said at the beginning, personally I see no problem with you uploading content to commons and linking to it from here provided the content is okay from a copyright standpoint. But do consider that if a bunch of the uploads are deleted as potential copyright violations, the community here is probably not going to take kindly to that given your topic ban, whatever happens to you on commons.

From what I see, that has not been a problem as of yet, so if it stays that way I personally see no problem. But I would suggest you seek feedback etc there if unsure about copyright status. (Remembering though that we are all volunteers, so ultimately you're going to have to learn and generally get it right yourself.) Separately, you would also want to ensure what you're doing is in the scope of commons. I think it is, but again, I know very little and that's something best addressed on commons.

I will say that from my POV, if you've shown an ability to correctly upload third party content on commons, it's quite likely this will help with any appeal as a demonstration you're both sufficiently versed in copyright issues, and will do your due diligence before adding additional external links.

Nil Einne ( talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your feedback.

I've never advocated for the insertion of fair use material on Wikimedia wikis in my life. In some 15 years of participating in debates on the matter, I've always been on the other side. In fact I'm one of the three of five persons across all Wikimedia wikis most active in shutting down fair use uploads so that we ensure our content is free.

The part about showing "an ability to correctly upload third party content on commons" is funny. It's literally my job to do it and teach thousands of professionals. Nemo 08:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Swarm, please let me know if you have comments. I understand that your comment on adding citations normally includes using WP:UCB, is that right? Nemo 16:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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. ₪Rickn Asia₪ 05:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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. —— SerialNumber 54129 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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 /info/en/?search=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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply
  • 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

See 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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 So Why 05:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

That discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#DOI bot without WEBSITE and URL: bug or feature?.

The links from there have moved to

• User talk:Citation bot/Archive 17#"Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier"
• User talk:Citation bot/Archive 18#"Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier"
• Template talk:Citation/Archive 8#Where should links to url or doi params appear in the citation?

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) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " OAbot". Thank you. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 06:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Nemo bis, Thank you for your message. Yes, I did use the OAbot, I like to leave the title of the pdf in the subject whenever I can. Thank you too for the Lit Repository link so I can double check for prefixes and such next time. Your tips are greatly appreciated. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith ( talk) 21:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_archived_active_discussion Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 14:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the parameter. So if I get this right, you think the onus is on article authors to add this parameter, not on the bot user to check whether a second url is needed? I think that's the wrong way around but I can see the guy is unlikely to budge. Was there an ANI or similar discussion of the matter? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Both the URL and the doi-access parameters are equally recommended, but we're all volunteers here so of course you're not forced to fill the cite templates perfectly. The relevant directions are at Help:Citation_Style_1#Online_sources. Nemo 08:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Ah, thanks, but the question is whether the bot user is meant to check the status of the DOI link before adding another? If he doesn't, then the rest of us are forced both to remove the duff link (on checking) and then to add the parameter, which does seem a topsy-turvy process to me. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not aware of such an explicit requirement. The access parameters are useful because they make everyone's life easier. Nemo 08:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Welcome to portal cleanup. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Nemo 05:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

See WP:ANI#Request for block review. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi, I read your comment Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3 and since it didn't seem to receive a reply, I thought I'd offer some advice bearing in mind this is not something I've really dealt with before.

While you're right we allow archive links, including adding these automatically, I don't believe this is the same as automatically adding CiteSeerX links. AFAIK, archive links are only ever automatically added for an existing URLs. If we have a story on www.nytimes.com/meow, it's acceptable to add an archive of it. If a link dies, there's a slight chance this is because it was hosted without the permission of the copyright holder. More likely it was some other reason. If someone adds a URL to www.copyrightviolationcopiesofnewyorktimesarticles.com/meow, then yes we may automatically add an archive of this. But the problem began with the addition of the initial URL. Adding an archive of it may compound the problem, but not that much.

As I understand it, this isn't what's happening with CiteSeerX. CiteSeerX links are being added automatically despite us not linking to wherever they got them from. It's like a bot is going out an searching an archive site for copies of content, no matter the source URL. So maybe the bot adds links archive copies of www.copyrightviolationcopiesofnewyorktimesarticles.com even though we never linked to that site in the first place.

This is clearly a problem, since the bot is the one introducing the original links to potential copyvios rather than simply archive links to content which someone else has hopefully already sufficiently checked when they added to wikipedia in the first place. I'm sure CiteSeerX does have some restrictions in what they will add, but it's considered these restricted aren't strigent enough. You seem to disagree, but again, unless you convince the community otherwise you'll need to respect the restriction.

From what I see, another problem is the way links to CiteSeerX work. For normal archive links, the original URL should generally always be preserved on wikipedia in some form. In other words, I should always be able to see on wikipedia that archive.org/cvcnytam is an archive of www.copyrightviolationcopiesofnewyorktimesarticles.com/meow It's therefore far easier to see potential problems.

While CiteSeerX does preserve providence of what they archive, so if I go to them I would see they got their copy from www.copyrightviolationcopiesofnewyorktimesarticles.com/meow, I can't actually see this here on wikipedia. That seems to be reflective of the fact we aren't treating them simply as archives of URLs we already link to but a seperate link for the resource. So even if you were to propose only adding links to CiteSeerX when we already link to whatever URL they got it from, there may still be problems. The initial URL could be removed from the ref but the CiteSeerX will remain so it may be more stringent checking is required, I'm not sure.

Separately I could imagine there may be cases where it's felt that us linking to the original URL is fine, but an archival copy is not if the original URL's use of the content is already somewhat teneous on copyright grounds but this is fairly speculative. (I think more likely we just won't allow the original URL.)

Nil Einne ( talk) 13:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I understand this distinction, in a lay man's eye, between one case and the other. However, it's not clear at all that the law would agree that "the problem began with the addition of the initial URL". WP:COPYLINKS certainly doesn't make such a distinction. Nemo 08:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The admin agreed that it is not to be deleted. Please stay off the article. Aaron Justin Giebel ( talk) 23:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc ( talk) 21:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Never mind, I've downgraded you to uninvolved party status. ToThAc ( talk) 22:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ok, thank you for the notice. Nemo 08:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi. Regarding this, kindly see this. Also this. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the notice. I don't have much to add to what has already been said. Nemo 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

just wanted to let you know that the mystery has been solved —usernamekiran (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

What happened here to my test cases? Shouldn't this stay out of user space? StarryGrandma ( talk) 01:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

With this edit you added an url to a citation, violating your editing restriction. I could block you, but I would prefer that you self-revert and not do such edits again. You are responsible for edits made by scripts/tools/bots under your direction, so you need to either not complete edits that include adding an url or remove the offending url before saving. If you cannot control the tool/script/bot in that manner, you need to not use the bot. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the notice. I've stopped and self-reverted.

The cleanup was being discussed at WP:RSN and elsewhere. The chief objective of those runs of edits is to remove some redundant or broken URLs (for instance, on that page, the JSTOR link should be replaced with an identifier link; but the bot couldn't, so it needs to be done manually afterwards).

I've asked various times, and above recently, how to interpret the topic ban. If read literally, it would have prohibited even the addition of new citations with {{ cite web}}. I've got some replies but I may have misunderstood, so any additional advice is most welcome. How am I to perform citation cleanup work in the future? Pretty much all the tools in this space add URLs, even vanilla VisualEditor. I could do double the work and undo the edits which the tools will perform anyway the next time a "normal" user passes on the page (and I did so for many months, when I didn't give up on adding citations), but I'm not sure that was the goal of the topic ban. Nemo 08:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You can't add urls. Period. If the tools you're using won't let you not add urls, then you need to stop using the tools. If the addition of the url is important, someone else will do it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I posted this on phabricator but I cannot seem to get OAbot to run on Blue whale.

OAbot
Oops! Something went wrong.

Error:
[Errno 9] Bad file descriptor
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/data/project/oabot/www/python/venv/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/flask/app.py", line 1813, in full_dispatch_request
rv = self.dispatch_request()
File "/data/project/oabot/www/python/venv/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/flask/app.py", line 1799, in dispatch_request
return self.view_functions[rule.endpoint](**req.view_args)
File "/data/project/oabot/www/python/src/app.py", line 142, in process
context = get_proposed_edits(page_name, force)
File "/data/project/oabot/www/python/src/app.py", line 231, in get_proposed_edits
filtered = list(filter(lambda e: e.proposed_change, all_templates))
File "./oabot/main.py", line 357, in add_oa_links_in_references
edit.propose_change(only_doi)
File "./oabot/main.py", line 80, in propose_change
sys.stdout.flush()
IOError: [Errno 9] Bad file descriptor
If you don't think you should be seeing this error please report it on Phabricator.

-- Nessie ( 📥) 17:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Cadmus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Mitchell ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I see you have been changing some portals to use {{ Transclude lead excerpt}} for the intro section. I am not in general a big fan of that, especially for country portals, as the article lead section is typically too long to be transcluded in its entirety, while using only half of the lead section misses out on some relevant content. That the handwritten versions need updates is not usually a big problem, as basic facts about countries are fairly stable. (I do like auto transclusion for BLPs and fast changing selected articles). At Portal:Canada and at Portal:Mexico, I think your suggested introduction is inferior to the one we had before. Please check carefully whether the introduction section produced by the template is an improvement or not. At Portal:Pakistan, you lost relevant images and the national anthem. As you made the edits in very rapid succession, I assume you did not check them: please do, and revert or improve those where the auto-transclusion does not help. Happy editing, — Kusma ( t· c) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm not the biggest fan of the Module:Excerpt progenie of templates, but I just applied them for consistency where they were already in use. I did check that the intro made sense; the edits were saved all together but I worked on them before that.

Increasing the length of the excerpt is quite easy, if that's really wanted: I already increased it to 3 paragraphs in some cases, you can do the same (or more) where you feel that some essential information is now missing. I'm not aware of a reason why the intro of a portal should be as comprehensive as the lead section of an article, so I don't currently intend to increase the size of the excerpt beyond what I already considered to be appropriate. Nemo 21:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Portal lead sections are not article teasers. Your "consistency" is making things worse. As you have noticed yourself, the intro sections are too long, but using only a part of them gives you stuff like talking about Canada's geography and climate instead of its governmental system and standing in the world. Please explain why this is the more suitable content. — Kusma ( t· c) 04:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Geography is the most basic and necessary information, for instance it's what everyone would study in primary school. Knowing that Canada is still a constitutional monarchy or whether it's in the APEC is way down the priority list, so I think the new intro is superior. That said, if someone feels those two paragraphs are necessary, it's no big deal to transclude those too. Nemo 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I disagree about Canada. Anyway, I believe writing a bespoke summary of the article for the portal is superior to having to regularly check how many paragraphs of the lead section should be transcluded (automated transclusion requires regular maintenance!). I'll start a general discussion about this at some central noticeboard soonish and will ping you. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

In case my ping didn't go through: discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. — Kusma ( t· c) 05:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Will be reverting many as the edits removed shortcut and read more links to articles....and in some cases broke the box format. ...as seen in the past year mass fast changes has caused big problem like a few bans and even a desysopped.-- Moxy 🍁 22:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Nemo bis, I've just mentioned you at User_talk:Citation_bot#Curious_regarding_Citation_Bot_unlinking_and_relinking_and_changing_ISBN_to_isbn. You might be able to assist my query. SilkTork ( talk) 18:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thoughts on how to easily run the citation bot on all pages with IEEE urls? A good start would be https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Search&limit=2500&profile=default&search=insource%3Aurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdocument%2F&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the suggestions. I have gotten a huge number of the ieee urls removed and replaced with DOIs. The next big hurdle is not template ones, but my life is too busy for that. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply

This task has been multi-step. Lots of improvements. IEEE URLs are going down! Older ones have no dois. Also, some dois point to a where do you want to go page? AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I have now done all pages with ieee urls on wikipedia. Now moving onto about 30,000 more pages (all with worldcat urls, openlibrary urls, etc.) that have urls that the citation templates have paramaters for. Using curl and a little regex I was able to scrape the wikipedia searches. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Nebo bis. I was trying to work around the term "subsidiary", which means controlled/ owned or majority controlled/ owned by the parent company. What I was trying to do was to remove the impression that it became a subsidiary from day 1 of the interaction betweeen the two parties. But I guess it is fine as it is. And yes, I did not know about not going into detailed percentages in the lede. Duly noted, thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 14:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

30 % is already a controlling stake per the Italian law, which can trigger mandatory budget consolidation among other things IIRC. We can use a more neutral term like "part of". The only significant change after the initial takeover is when the company was effectively delisted (which paves the way for a full merge). We still need to add the exact date when this happened. Nemo 14:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

There is also a gap betweeen the collapse and all the ensuing legal woes etc, and "By 2011, Parmalat had grown cash to €1.5 billion". As for list of delisting, because of legal action by Citi Bank, it was held up for a while. This article mentions the delisting and points to an article written February 10. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Technological measures. Since you had some involvement with the Technological measures redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

-- Green C 15:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comparison of webmail providers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARC ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 14:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

My laptop cannot cope with the rollbacks - Can you please self revert on every article where you've removed the http://www.informaworld.com website - We have WP:WAYBACK and so therefore there is no valid reason to remove the links, Thank you. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The links are broken in wayback machine too, this has been discussed at length in the relevant noticeboards. Don't revert. Nemo 17:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Ummm this wayback link works? ...... I appreciate not all are going to be archived but unless there's actual consensus that states removing these are fine then they shouldn't under any circumstance be removed, also could you point to the discussion please. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Why in the holy fuck are you reverting ? Again point me to this discussion or I'm taking you to ANI. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

(one of my answers got lost in an edit conflict) I'm reverting your rollbacks because they were not justified and therefore they were abusive. (No big deal, it's easy to fix; just avoid persisting.) You're free to restore your edits by proper means.

One of the main discussions was Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#sciencedirect.com_..._interscience.wiley.com_..._informaworld.com. Nemo 17:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Okay thank you, Okay so why are you removing these as opposed to adding archived links (such as the one above)?, To my knowledge we never ever delete urls here so I'm perplexed as to why you are but either way I'm failing to understand why you're not simply adding archieved links if they're available ?, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry this was explained in the reply which got lost in an edit conflict...

The URLs which could be usefully fixed by checking the wayback machine were fixed by WP:WAYBACKMEDIC a few months ago. The remaining URLs generally don't have enough useful information to be worth keeping (sometimes they even are mere error messages). A lot of the URLs are also redundant in other ways, for instance links to a journal's main page which is now superseded by another link: in your example, Central Asian Survey doesn't have any use for an URL from the previous incarnation of the publisher, like [12] or [13], which is fully superseded by the current URL https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ccas20/current .

Removing the broken and irrecoverable or redundant URLs allows to more easily add proper URLs later (including the current target of the respective DOI if existing). To this purpose I've converted a number of citations to {{ cite journal}}, so that a search by title, author and date can recover the current URL (often this works even with WP:UCB). Nemo 18:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, I think I sort of get the jist lol - Having looked around it would seem there was a consensus both at the RSN, GreenC's talkpage and I think the Citation Bots talkpage(?),

In the link above Jessicas name is there which for me is enough to keep however as I said I don't actually get any of this or why,

Anway please accept my sincere apologies for the reverts (and for the message above) - I assumed you were removing these without any consensus and at the time was afraid someone was going to edit those pages after meaning it would be tricky to add the URLs back,

Anyway my sincere and unreserved apologies for the disruption I've unintentionally caused tonight,

Happy editing, Thanks, Kind Regards, – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

OK thanks. It's alright, I rushed to undo only because these edits are very tedious to redo if there are edit conflicts. There might be some mistake here and there, I'm not perfect, but I'm trying really hard not to lose any information here. (And it takes a lot of time.) Nemo 18:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for removing the outdated link to the journal website on Margaret Mead - I know I hate it when I find wiki articles I really want to use and get broken links in the references!

Next time you come across something like that, it's worth just giving a look to whether the URL is available on the Wayback Machine. While pending change reviewing your link removal, I took a look there, and managed to find where the page has moved to - so I've updated the link to that. Hopefully by doing so, the next person to look at those references will have an easier time :)

All the best! | Naypta ^✉ opened his mouth at 16:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for adding a new link. In such a case it's worth giving a closer look to what the source is actually used for, for instance I suspect that only some article has been used from that volume, not the entire special issue. Nemo 16:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

A long time ago you said "For now I'm just relying on user scripts (both on-wiki JS and Tampermonkey), so no need to bother changing anything just for me. (I can share them if needed, nothing special.)". I do not know who's script you use to avoid "slow mode", but the hostnames and path need changed from tools.wmflabs.org/citations to citations.toolforge.org AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks, noted. (I'm not using any at the moment.) Nemo 13:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Nemo, this is now the second time that I see you collapsing discussion threads on our citation template talk page with misleading edit summaries: [14] [15] I consider this as extremely rude and uncollaborative behaviour, counter-productive to the project. Both discussions were top-relevant in regard to a proper implementation of the "auto-linking" feature, because "as is" the implementation is incomplete and can lead to problems. It is obvious that you do not like the suggestions broad forward there, either because you do not want editors to have any means to override the automatic behaviour where necessary at all, or because you want the feature to be rolled out today rather than tomorrow. But that does not give you any right to suppress other opinions. Instead, you should help working on a solution which addresses the raised concerns, so that the feature can be implemented properly. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 07:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I note your edit to Contracaecum. Why is ScienceDirect an unreliable source? Where can you point me to where that has been agreed on Wikipedia? I have searched but cannot locate that, I can locate Wikipedia:Elsevier ScienceDirect which seems to suggest otherwise. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 14:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Science Direct is just a website, it contains all sorts of things. Asking whether it's reliable is like asking whether Google.com is a reliable source. "Science Direct Topics" is merely a collection of automatically generated snippets from random papers. Have you actually read what it is about and could you please tell me under which category of Wikipedia:Reliable sources do you think it would fall? Thanks, Nemo 15:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Nemo bis Thank you I looked at it and it claims that it provides "credible, accurate and relevant content", it is a summary of papers. So, if you were to explain it to someone who was, as we say, hard of understanding, you would say that they should cite the papers referred to on the summary rather than the summary, is that correct? Quetzal1964 ( talk) 17:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, definitely, cite directly. Especially as those snippets may vary, so in a year or two the reader may not find at all what you were referring to. I found many such cases already... Nemo 14:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Seconding this, @ Nemo bis: why are you removing scientific articles that are listed on Science Direct and calling them "machine generated"? They are academic articles and reviews. What on earth are you doing? Sxologist ( talk) 04:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Also pinging @ Eepavan: and @ Ealdgyth: can you review his removal of citations? They are removing a bunch of citations which they refer to as "machine generated" even though they're links to reputable Elsevier journal articles. Aren't they banned from editing URLS? Sxologist ( talk) 04:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

No academic article is being removed: these are just editorial webpages made by bots (probably for SEO purposes). Where an academic article was referenced specifically, I strove to update the reference to cite it directly, as one should do (examples 1, 2). Sadly, most of the references to these unreliable pages were unusable, so it was impossible to convert them to correct ones. Nemo 14:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC) reply

To be clear, it looks like Science Direct has some odd URL system that redirects people to a common SEO page. I have no idea why, but original editors have correctly linked it – it's Science Direct that is causing the issue. Thanks for clarifying though, I see what you mean. Sxologist ( talk) 03:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

You have edited an article recently, deleting a Cite with the reason that it is not from a reliable source as it is a machine-generated article. I have read the chat above about Science Direct, What an interesting observation. I can't find any reference to this as being a problem on Wiki so maybe the Reliable sources page needs to be updated. I'm not technically competent to do this. I'll leave your edit for now and thankyou for pointing it out. I'm interested to find out more. User:Barkercoder —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Indeed machine-generated sources are quite a new thing, although already widespread in certain places like financial news. Google is funding big national newspapers to adopt AI-powered news generation, so in a short while this might become a bigger issue (or maybe it's just a fad; it wouldn't be the first time).

The Elsevier approach is quite simplistic and in theory easy to handle (but most people just follow Google and get tricked by their SEO tactics), while Springer for instance has started a much more sophisticated series of machine-generated books. Nemo 18:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello Nemo! In June, I suggested updates to the list of journals in the Frontiers Media article. You may recall you were involved in some of the discussions on the article Talk page. I have made improvements to my proposed text based on those discussions. Are you able to revisit that request? If not, are there other places I should go to seek help?

Best, JBFrontiers ( talk) 09:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scalix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Microsoft Exchange.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, why are you deleting the direct links to the cited papers in this article? I asked you to explain on the article's Talk Page, but you deleted them again. Graham Beards ( talk) 14:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry for missing the question, I answered on the talk page. Nemo 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Nemo bis, I saw your edit removing a duplicated URL from the cite journal template and wondered if you'd be interested in a small project that's on my list. Around 2100 medicine-related articles have dead URLs (here's the PetScan query). Clicking through the list, a substantial number of the dead links are in {{ cite journal}} templates that already have stable identifiers. So those dead links, and the maintenance template, can be safely removed. I asked for a broader version of this task at Bot requests but haven't got any bites yet. I think the medicine articles are particularly enriched in dead links that are within cite journal templates, so perhaps it's a particularly good place to start. Anyway, no pressure, just hoped something on my to do list might align with your interests. I hope all is well on your end! Ajpolino ( talk) 15:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello. I see that you are removing URLs where DOIs exist. URLs can be very useful to our readers, especially where the DOI has been grabbed by a commercial publisher. For example, in Life ref 196, the DOI leads to Royal Society Publishing where I can buy access, but the text is freely and legally available at National Center for Biotechnology Information and perhaps elsewhere. Certes ( talk) 11:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The edit in question removes a dead url and replaces it with a link to the free PMC. So, are you complaining about what Nemo bis did or are you praising it? AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

We've resolved the matter at User talk:Certes#Re: Remove URL redundant with identifier in autolinked citation. Certes ( talk) 14:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- ParoleSonore ( talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Non fraintendermi, ma davvero non capisco la tua insistenza. Come si vede, questo tipo di informazioni in pratica non si usano per l'articoli dei gruppi musicali. Inoltre non è nemmeno supportato dalle regole né vedo come lo stesso sia citato nel loro articolo di Wikipedia italiana. Né questo tipo di informazioni è di natura enciclopedica. Prova a capire. Saluti.-- ParoleSonore ( talk) 23:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Se ti interessa la comunità LGBT o il loro sostegno a quella comunità o la loro sessualità/comportamento non convenzionale, non preoccuparti, non deve essere menzionato su Wikipedia affinché il pubblico possa vedere quanto sono bravi e coraggiosi questi giovani artisti nella loro vita privata e profesionale. Tra un paio d'anni, quando e se avremo più informazioni sulla loro carriera e contesto, probabilmente verrà menzionato qualcosa a riguardo, ma ora no.-- ParoleSonore ( talk) 23:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

You are getting reported. You just broke the WP:3RR. -- ParoleSonore ( talk) 16:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

As you wish. I'll be offline for a while, be careful with your pings this time to avoid selective canvassing. Nemo 16:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Non sei per niente amichevole e ragionevole. Perché ignori così ostinatamente la costruzione del consenso?-- ParoleSonore ( talk) 17:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I see you are still doing "remove URL redundant with identifier in autolinked citation", by the hundreds, as if you are an unregistered bot. In this recent edit, the original URL lands at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jacs.7b07546?src=recsys and the automatic replacement linked URL (a copy of the PMID link) lands at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.7b07546. This is probably valid: The Wikipedia page looks the same (the article title is still underlined with a link), and the link function is [almost] the same (the final URL changed, but it seems equivalent).

I'm not saying whether this editing is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable. I cannot get clear on whether others found this human activity considered helpful, trivial, annoying, or counterproductive. I can't tell you to stop or ask you to stop, but I'm definitely not urging you to continue. (Every error is counterproductive. The benefit (if any) is small. So even a few errors would make the net gain negative for all involved.)

These edits are "simple", automatable work. A bot could do them. Humans doing "bot work" is not a good thing. It wastes the human's time and it adds unnecessary human errors. If this work was important, someone might already have started a bot doing it. If it is important and a bot is not doing it, someone could propose the task as a bot writer, or propose the task to bot writers. (At some point bot(s) were doing something like this; they seem to have stopped; I don't know.)

However, these edits appear defective because they leave an empty parameter in the {cite}. In the last edit,
...Rearrangement|url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jacs.7b07546?src=recsys|journal=... became
...Rearrangement|url= |journal=... , when it should have become
...Rearrangement|journal=... .
Active bots clean up (delete) a lot of empty parameters – they visit most pages, eventually. But the empty "|url=" parameter and its removal are completely necessary. Multiply this by hundreds of edits, all with this same mistake. If you continue to make this kind of edit, please adjust your practice (or algorithm) to not leave behind the empty |url= parameter. Delete the whole parameter: delete starting with the vertical bar ("|") before "url", up to (but not including) the next vertical bar or closing curly bracket ("}"). -- A876 ( talk) 00:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Leaving an empty URL parameter is definitely not an error. It's customary to leave such empty parameters where it seems likely that future editors may want to fill them; for this reason, you'll find that bots to remove empty parameters have been discussed very widely before finding a consensus.

I agree with you that a bot could be coded to perform this task better than a human ever could, however that has not happened yet and I don't personally wish to invest time in that kind of effort. If you wish to write and propose such a bot, I'll be happy to advise. Nemo 06:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Leaving an empty |url= parameter definitely is an error. You deleted the value of the |url= parameter with the notion that it should never have a value. It's customary not to leave empty parameters where you are sure that future editors would and should never want to fill them. You'll find that bots remove empty parameters thoroughly. And when a bot removes the |url= parameter due to redundancy, it removes the entire parameter, not just the value. You have little excuse for doing bot work. (No one has bothered to ask you to stop.) You have less excuse for doing bot work incorrectly. -- A876 ( talk) 20:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ParoleSonore ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Please stop with you disruptive WP:HARASS and WP:HOUND behavior hounding every my edit and talk page. Stop to WP:BITE.-- ParoleSonore ( talk) 12:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Free knowledge. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Free knowledge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 ( talk) 21:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arla Oy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lapinjärvi.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rosneft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Dudley.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing out the resource! Myotus ( talk) 00:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I have replied to your post to me, on my talk page. Thank you for the information on IAS. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You seem to be spamming identical content (complete with useless zenodo URLs) from dubious sources into selected articles to push a POV, and edit warring to retain these edits. I'm fairly sure this will need to go to ANI, but before that do you have any explanation? Bon courage ( talk) 13:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "useless Zenodo URLs"?

Have you even read the edits you reverted? You restored unsourced statements and obvious promotional material. Nemo 13:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I have missed anything, but aren't you indefinitely banned from adding URLs to citations? -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Not sure what you mean by that. Check again and let me know what you think. Nemo 13:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Example

So taking this [16] as an example the problem seems to be that you have singled out certain commercial academic publishers/publications and then

1. Set up a straw man of them being prestigious, cited to a blog
2. Knocked that down in Wikipedia's voice making the (incomprehensible) claim that the journal was found to "publish significantly substandard structures" – this is in fact a niche reference to computer models of molecular structures as of some research in 2007. The second cited reference does not WP:Verify the text at all.
3. Omitting the (weak) sources own conclusion that "All journals seem to have difficulties coping with the issue of reliability".
4. Mixed in a redundant zenodo URL.

Is this correct? Bon courage ( talk) 14:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Let me chime in here. You are adding a reference to this article by Brembs to several articles. However, this article on a bibliometric subject was published in a journal on Cognitive Neuroscience and edited and reviewed by 3 neuroscientists. Add to that that Frontiers really doesn't like to reject articles and we have a source that's more a personal opinion than a serious scientific publication. On top of that, as Bon courage indicates above, you seem to use a liberal dose of OR and SYNTH... -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Feb 15: WikiWednesday @ BPL + on Zoom

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Wednesday February 15 WikiWednesday @ BPL ( RSVP on-wiki). 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm ( Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn) Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

-- Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community and visitors from the global Wikimedia Foundation for our WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central, in-person at Convene 101 Park Avenue in the vicinity of Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! This is somewhat of a sequel to last year's Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Brunch in terms of the participants, though this time it is an evening event in a different borough. We may leaven the event with a few impromptu lightning talks, a Wiki-fashion show (yes, really!), and likely an afterparty tour. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Wednesday March 8 WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central ( RSVP off-wiki at Eventbrite to attend in-person). 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm ( Convene 101 Park Avenue, near Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

-- Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page ISO 20022, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A " missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/In focus
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips and tricks

These pieces might interest you. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Does the server need a kick in the butt or something? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I need to switch to the python3 codebase. I'll try later today. Nemo 08:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Just in case you missed it... the OAbot is malfunctioning, thinking everything is nonfree. -- Rockstone ^{Send me a message!} 02:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I've answered there. Quite wild to get a block without even a talk page message. Nemo 16:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I responded to your comments and lead text removal on Talk:Kessel_Run#Reliable_sources. -- GRuban ( talk) 13:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

And again, several days ago. I hope I explained, phrase by phrase and section by section, how the text you deleted was actually a summary of the rest of the article. You could put it back without the sources, because of that, or with the sources if you think that would make it better, or in some completely other form if you think that would be better, you may well be a better summarizer than I am, in which case I'll be perfectly fine with your rephrasing - but we do need a summary of the rest of the article, that is what a lede is supposed to be. -- GRuban ( talk) 16:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I will have to check that out! Thanks for the heads-up Red Director ( talk) 21:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I tried out the interface and it does utilize reference types I am not very familiar with. I do not feel like I have the authority to make educated guesses on those academic references as I am not trained well in that field. Looks like it has potential though. Red Director ( talk) 23:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello Nemo_bis and thanks for helping to improve the article Education. After you removed redundant URLs, there are error messages now in the section "Sources". For example:

{{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help)

I assume that we have to either restore the URL or remove archived URL together with the related parameters. I'm not sure which one is better. Phlsph7 ( talk) 09:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for noting. Just remove the archive URL, it's redundant itself (unless it provides an OA copy and there's none elsewhere, in which case it should be in the URL parameter). Citation bot should take care of it too. Nemo 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Actually no, it doesn't, so they need to be removed manually. (That's what I usually do but sometimes I miss them.) Nemo 09:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for looking into it. The article is currently a featured article candidate so reviewers look very closely for any error messages. Phlsph7 ( talk) 10:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh sorry, I had missed that. Citation bot successfully removed the extra access-data parameters but not for all citations, will do the rest manually. Nemo 10:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I nominated an article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Histamine N-methyltransferase and the editors mentioned that I have to get rid of references to MDPI journals (All the MDPI links should be axed; it is not considered a reliable publisher). I still believe that MDPI journals can be used (carefully). I saw you contributed to a Wikipedia article on perennial source. Can you suggest a link that would support my opinion on MDPI either in that discussion in the Template:Did you know nominations/Histamine N-methyltransferase or in a reply here in your user talk? Or maybe you have link that I am wrong and indeed should axe all MDPI references? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your prompt response at [17] and your help, you've made my day! Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

At this edit you [removed redundant URLs]. I have no problem with that except that when doing those kinds of edits, please also remove parameters that are dependant on the now-missing/empty |url= parameter. Failure to do so adds the article to one or more of Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL‎, Category:CS1 errors: archive-url‎, Category:CS1 errors: format without URL‎, and/or Category:CS1 errors: param-access which means that someone now has to clean up after you.

— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. I did launch the citation bot on (some of) those categories afterwards, but perhaps I missed some or a request timed out. I'll try harder next time. Nemo 20:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply