User talk:PedjaNbg

Welcome!

Hello, PedjaNbg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding redundant links to articles with existing DOI links

Hi, there's no point at all in adding a link to an open-source article which already has a DOI link which navigates to exactly that article. For example you just added one to Parasitism, which I have reverted. Please check before adding. Many thanks for your attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mate, I will do a double check from now.--PedjaNbg (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but you've just done the same thing at Predation. I've undone it. I do hope this isn't happening in dozens of other places too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, that's not what we usually call a redundant link, because it goes to a different place although it's a mirror of the same content (the version of record). Also, if you want to show that the DOI is already open access at the publisher, the correct way to do so is to add doi-access=free, otherwise we're back to the starting point. Nemo 18:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo: OK on the first point, but that's fine semantic juggling, whether we call it "redundant", "duplicate", "alternative", or "frankly unnecessary". On the DOI point, it is absolutely not my responsibility to go back over thousands of links created before this kerfuffle existed; anyone adding possibly-duplicate links should check before adding new ones. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you should do it. I'm just saying that adding an URL to an OA version is an improvement, because it signals that the article is OA. Marking the DOI as (gold) OA is another acceptable way. Reverting people who do either is not supported by policy. Nemo 22:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo: Well, adding a non-functioning link to HathiTrust in On Translating Beowulf, a link which results in "this article is not available online" definitely isn't "an improvement". I've removed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course broken links are another matter. Nemo 20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the new link in Ornithological Dictionary went to the identical place that the DOI link went to. To repeat, something is very wrong with this process. Redundant, superfluous, super to requirement, pointless, useless, timewasting, you choose the adjectival phrase, it's all the same to me. Could we please stop the charade. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is definitely not the same URL as [2] and the latter is not open access, so the link was appropriate. Please revert your revert. Nemo 13:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first page is the same. Are all three pages required? If not, feel free to revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What page are you talking about? Not sure about three "pages", but adding an open access URL and any open access identifier, in addition to a closed access DOI, is recommended whenever possible. You can find out more at Help:Citation_Style_1, to start with. Nemo 18:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced about this edit either and have reverted it. Anyone can see it at JSTOR (subject to their monthly "free view" limit) and I think whoever uploaded that article to Zenodo was probably in breach of the JSTOR terms and conditions. I think you are going to have to take much more care, based on the above comments. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Sitush, thanks for the remark, but I checked the copyright status of PDF which you mentioned, and I think that it supports the addition of it.--PedjaNbg (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, can you clarify? Do you think that document is not in the public domain? Nemo 06:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is certainly out of copyright (published 1900, IIRC). But JSTOR have some weird terms and, although they do host open access stuff, that paper is not itself open access via them. However, JSTOR also allows people to view up to X number of papers in full per month, regardless of whether the papers are open access or not.

I think using that Zenodo link might be rather like using YouTube, although quite how much weight the WMF would give to the JSTOR terms is anyone's guess. Bear in mind on the one hand that The Wikipedia Library has a deal with JSTOR and that might be compromised if they spot us ignoring those terms by providing links to sites that breach them; on the other hand, Commons routinely ignore the copyright claims etc made by various art galleries. - Sitush (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we know that Wikimedia doesn't support copyfraud. See also National Portrait Gallery, London#Legal threat against Wikipedia volunteer. Nemo 21:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I know that and alluded to it. But this isn't about copyfraud. This is about someone uploading something to Zenodo in breach of JSTOR's general conditions, not necessarily any claim to copyright. By linking to it, we're supporting that breach and, which is potentially worse, risking a good relationship with JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library that has indubitably been of much benefit to us. It isn't worth it, in my opinion - the sources are there and can be found by the reader, so we're just engaging in risky open-access activism. Perhaps this needs to be discussed centrally because (a) PedjaNbg seems to be using Zenodo a lot and (b) I've no idea why you are responding here but they are not. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about PedjaNbg but I'm here to look for bugs to fix or report. :-)

A link does not "support" anything; endorsements and such are made elsewhere. We should not indulge in second guessing what JSTOR may like or not, but it seems unlikely they care much: the content they host has been re-hosted for years in all sorts of places, including very large mirrors. Nemo 16:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're not in agreement. Expect to have your additions deleted then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted another of your UNAMBIGUOUSLY REDUNDANT links, at A History of Modern Yoga, where the existing DOI gave direct one-click access to a free copy of the article. It does not appear that you are doing very much if any checking before adding links, as you have repeatedly promised; at the very best, this is careless editing; but it is starting to appear reckless. I would like to imagine that the few links I have checked are the only ones affected, but it seems most unlikely: I have found a redundant/total link rate of over 30% which given the large number of links you have created suggests there could be many hundreds of newly-created redundant links. It would be much appreciated if you could either STOP or DO THE BEFORE CHECKS properly. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that's not a redundant link. Nemo 18:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest of respect, it was a totally unnecessary link, and in fact given the existence of the DOI link it was REQUIRED NOT to be present, so if you'd like to rename it to a pointless, useless, undesirable, and time-wasting link, that's fine by me. What is not fine is that you are CONTINUING to add wrong links, whatever nomenclature you wish to use for them. You are failing to perform the required BEFORE checks which is your duty, if you wish to perform the link-adding task that you have chosen voluntarily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention a guideline or policy according to which it's "required not", otherwise it remains your personal opinion. I'm trying to understand what you're talking about but it's pretty hard. Nemo 08:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretty hard": no, it's pretty easy. Editors should not be adding duplicates of anything to any article. When there is a free article at the end of a doi link, there are no grounds for adding anything. Conversely, when the link is not free, adding a link is usually going to be to an illegal copy of a copyrighted document. Whether that's against copyright law and Wikipedia policy is a matter for the lawyers, but it's certainly bad practice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. So in essence you're saying that you don't like any identifier or URL being added when there is already a DOI. This is clearly against Help:Citation Style 1#Identifiers, so you'd need to propose to change English Wikipedia practices in an appropriate discussion venue. Nemo 08:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, and please do not attempt to paraphrase my words, extract essences, or pretend that this is an oddity. There is no "don't like" about it; nor should anyone object to any link being added when there is already a DOI, unless, and this is the key point, the DOI when clicked on yields the complete document. The onus is on the editor adding a link to check, BEFORE adding it, that it is lawful and necessary. Many, perhaps all, of PedjaNbg's links were unchecked, as an admin has confirmed in a separate thread below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You stated above that "when the [DOI] link is not free, adding a link is usually going to be to an illegal copy of a copyrighted document". Doesn't this imply that "usually" the copy should not be linked, in your words? Nemo 11:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been answered by the thread below: illegal is also contrary to Wiki-policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related: not sure why you added a url that pointed to exactly the same place as the DOI: Special:Diff/917312721. Wikiacc (¶) 20:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try to be more careful. --PedjaNbg (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not related document

Hi PedjaNbg, You appear to be using the OAbot to look for Journal citations without URLs, and filling them with links to possible related items. However on the Fridley, Minnesota article, you appear to have filled a reference to Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification |journal=Hydrology and Earth System Sciences with a link to an article titled THE PRESENT AND FUTURE STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN POLAND AND BULGARIA, which happens to contain the words "Köppen-Geiger classification". This is not helpful. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report: something weird happened at https://dissem.in/10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007 (underlying issue). The easiest way to prevent it is to fill in the right URL manually (please see if that's ok with you), for the future I've also noted it at phabricator:T228702#5477790. Nemo 06:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OAbot edit

I don't know how automated OAbot is but your edit here seems to have generated a parsing error in {{cite journal}}. "url= missing title". I suppose it is the prior presence of "title-link", which I would regard as superior to zenodo. Citation handling is presently unstable anyway but the upshot is problematic for editors concerned with careful citing. Thincat (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of a bad edit. Both these are articles on my watchlist so there may be many other such cases. Please check your editing. Thincat (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Noren (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Your addition to Locality-sensitive hashing has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

You should never add links to articles without manually checking that those links can be traced back to copies provided by the author or publisher, per WP:ELNEVER. In this case, the sources listed by CiteSeerX are a course website and some other two random web sites unconnected with the author. If you repeatedly add such links, you can be blocked and lose your Wikipedia editing privileges; I have already done this to another OABOT user. So check carefully by yourself every single link that you add, because OABOT won't do it for you. —20:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, I will not add them any more.--PedjaNbg (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you did anyway. Hint: The author of the reference is Wattenberg. The owner of the link is Aigner, and the url name ("...teaching...") suggests that it is a course web site. Since you cannot be trusted to keep to your word to check your link additions, I have blocked you. You can be unblocked (by me or another admin, using {{unblock}}) if you can convince me that you will both stop using automated editing tools and stop adding links to references. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} Is it possible for us to work on link pool, to avoid any copyright violation? I understand what you are saying, copyright is nothing to be joked about, but adding reference is also a good thing. So my question is: can we maintain our references withing all copyright laws, and keep everything in order? Thanks a bunch.--PedjaNbg (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not checked that diff and PedjaNbg will need to answer this by themselves, but I'll note, David Eppstein, that the Eppstein test for whether a PDF is suitable for an article is not law, nor policy. It's just your own personal preference. Nemo 07:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if not demonstrably illegal (that's a matter for the lawyers), it's extremely close to breaking the policy on copyright: adding a link to an unauthorised and hence illegal copy is certainly undesirable and bad practice. It's also unstable, as such copies can (and should) be taken down at any time. Wikipedia should rather be reporting such things, not exploiting them, especially systematically.

Admins visiting this site may want to look at the related discussion "Adding redundant links to articles with existing DOI links" above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or anything that declares it's "undesirable and bad practice" to link an URL which doesn't contain the surname of the first author of a PDF. Nemo 11:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. Attaching a document that is in copyright but has been illegally published without the author's or publisher's permission is certainly bad practice and could well be illegal, ask your lawyer. If you think about it for an instant, you will see that it constitutes advertising an illegal copy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:COPYLINK, para 2, is where we say this. Thincat (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that these links fall under WP:ELNEVER #1. They are links within references, rather than in specifically designated external link sections, but nevertheless they are external links. Note for instance that ELNEVER #2 (technically blocked links) applies equally to links within references and links elsewhere in articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From now on I will try extra hard to add only links which leads to academic repositories. --PedjaNbg (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PedjaNbg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is it possible for us to work on link pool, to avoid any copyright violation? I understand what you are saying, copyright is nothing to be joked about, but adding reference is also a good thing. So my question is: can we maintain our references withing all copyright laws, and keep everything in order? Thanks a bunch.--PedjaNbg (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} I will not be adding any more links or be working for an upwork client anymore. I`ve had enough of that. I worked on wikipedia in the past by adding articles on several languages, and I will continue only contributing in good practice.PedjaNbg (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent WP:COPYLINK vio at Sorting algorithm

Your addition to Sorting algorithm has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. (edit was 24 September 2019) Glrx (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Glrx, please don't send such warnings without specifying exactly on what legal authority you base them. Nemo 08:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of mistaken URL to bibliography of Maharam algebra

Just to warn you, OABot misled you in your edit on the Maharam algebra article. The link added is not to Maharam's article, but to an unrelated article in German. I have removed this link for now (I have found another OABot mistake in a different article as well and given a notification on the talk page). RobertFurber (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's answered at User_talk:OAbot#DML.cz_in_April_2020. Nemo 06:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]