User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/April

SSRN link
Greetings, you reverted an edit I made to the social media article, changing an SSRN link. I would prefer that the title be clickable as this makes accessing the article easier, in my opinion. I find the current presentation a bit confusing, with a link to the walled version, a link to the SSRN homepage and then a link to the article. I don't understand the benefit of three links as opposed to just one. If you can offer a justification for this change, please let me know. Best, Jaobar (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The SSRN version is not the official version of the paper, which is usually what people expect when using a title link. The SSRN links remains there and is clearly labelled as the SSRN version (which is also clearly labelled as freely accessible). I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'three links', since in my version, there was only the doi (official version, not freely accessible) and SSRN (preprint version, freely accessible). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @Headbomb, thank you for your response. To clarify, the third link is attached to the word SSRN, which takes you internally to the SSRN Wikipedia page. To me, this adds confusion to the process of finding a downloadable version, and epitomizes the over-thinking taking place here. Let's make getting access to information simpler, isn't that the point here? While I understand what you're saying, how is providing a link to a paywall justified in this context? What you've done here is create a scenario where someone gets to the open access version only if they can figure out that they should click some random number. The doi doesn't take them there, the SSRN link takes them somewhere else. This is very confusing, and in my opinion, contrary to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about - making access to information easy. Frankly, if I could, I would remove the doi completely as accessing a paywall is completely useless in the Wikipedia context. Furthermore, the paper on the SSRN is essentially the exact same article that appears behind the paywall, just without the fancy publisher font and layout. With this in mind, I don't see that there is any added value to limiting access in this way. Fancy fonts and layouts don't make articles "official", peer review does. The SSRN version is essentially the peer reviewed version. Please leave it as I would prefer it, unless you can justify what I perceive to be a very confusing and unnecessary format change. To hear Wikipedians being critical of SSRN versions, in a publishing world dominated by big bad academic publishers like Elsevier (the publisher of Telecom Policy by the way), seems completely counter to what we should be championing. I will not change from this position based on what I'm reading here thus far. I firmly believe that we should be promoting open access, not limiting it. If you would like to change what I've done and counter what I'm advocating, I suggest that we escalate this to the next level of discussion. Having never had to do this before, I'll await your direction. I suggest we just move on from this and stop limiting SSRN access. I doubt folks will support promotion of paywalls, which is essentially what's being done here. Jaobar (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Internal links are in deep blue, while external links have a light shade of blue. That's how all identifiers links are presented on Wikipedia (bibcodes, dois, ISSNs, SSRNs, etc.) The SSRN is the second such link.

Concerning the "paywall link", if by that you mean the doi, this is the most used identifier in academia, and will link to the official version of record, in other words, the authoritative version of the paper. The SSRN link is definitely useful, since it provides a free link, but to a preprint version (which aren't peer-reviewed, and thus are not as reliable as their peer-reviewed version). This is not the version of record, but is provided as a convenience link for those who may not have access to the free version. Both links are clearly labelled as the DOI link, and the SSRN link (which is specifically marked as free with the open access green lock). You can mark other links as free too (e.g. the free doi in Social_media, but if you have an SSRN link for that one, you can add it too via ssrn). This follow the principle of least astonishment: we provide titles are linked to free official versions, so the reader doesn't waste time clicking a link they don't have access to, and identify which databases have free links, even if they aren't the full official version.

And before accusing me of siding with "big bad publishers", or "harming free access" this scheme is publisher-agnostic, and quite obviously promotes free access. Look at references in e.g. quark. All main links (those declared via url) are free, and all free identifiers are marked as such. arXiv links are automatically marked as free, as are links to bioRxiv, CiteSeerX, SSRN, PubMed Central, and other free repositories. Sometimes free identifier links (Bibcode, dois, hdls, JSTOR, etc.) are individually marked as free when they are, and I'm advocating pretty strongly that free versions of record automatically link (as if url was used) when we have them (PMC already does this, but I want to see the other free identifiers to versions of record to behave the same too.). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And in fact, using url instead of ssrn harms the free access movement because it discourages editors from looking for a free version of record (e.g. a PDF of the version of record uploaded to the author's website). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will additionally remind you of WP:COI and your lack of neutrality on this issue. I am utterly unimpressed that you'd promote your own work in this way, and revert war on the issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @Headbomb, well, unfortunately we do not agree. First of all, the version I posted on the SSRN is the peer-reviewed version, as previously stated, so you are wrong there. The only difference is that the Elsevier version has fancy font and layout, again, as previously stated. Second, is your highly technical justification the position of the community? That all readers are expected to know what the SSRN is? (I can tell you that most academics working at universities don't even know what the SSRN is, especially if they're not in the social sciences!) The open lock image may catch on, but again, you're assuming that most people know what open access is, they don't at this point. To me, this over-thinking is far more exclusionary than inclusive. The more you add these minute details to pages, the less inclusive they will be. I highly doubt that anyone looking for a free version will see that random number and think, oh that's where I get the free version. Most people likely think, if I click on the first link I see, hopefully it'll take me to what I'm looking for. The first link is the paywall, so yes, you're privileging paywalls. This is a poor plan for leading people to open access materials, in my opinion. While I assume that you're trying to help, I thoroughly disagree with your method and with your rationale. I can't see an undergrad learning about social media for the first time following your rationale either, let alone a high school student. So, where do we go from here? Jaobar (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's why we have the link to SSRN next to the identifier, and that hovering on the green open access lock with a mouse has the hover text "Freely accessible". This is also a much, much, friendlier way of making things accessible for people with screen readers and the like (who will also be told that the SSRN link is freely-accessible). And paywall links are not privileged in the least. The order of appearance is alphabetical by identifier. arXiv (always free, preprint), ASIN (never free, discouraged because it favours a specific distributor, but OK if nothing else exists), bibcode (sometimes free, usually version of record when available), biorxiv (always free, preprint), CiteSeerX (always free, mostly versions of record), digital object identifier (sometimes free, sometimes not), hdl (sometimes free, sometimes not) etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to the conflict of interest claim, while I can understand your attempt to use that as leverage, my argument has nothing to do with the content. My argument is about links, and nothing more. I would be more than happy to advocate that all instances of SSRN demotions, which I assume advocates of your method are now pushing, be reverted across the mainspace. Again, I can't see how confusing readers and privileging paywalls could ever be something the community supports. Jaobar (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If it was about links, you'd be trying to remove other SSRN links from the article, like Social_media like you're doing with your own paper. This is clearly about your paper. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, many other citations in the list have clickable titles that connect to open access versions, including the second title in the list. I assume you're going to argue that because the version linked to is the one with the publisher font and layout that it's alright. Again, the distraction of the SSRN link is highly problematic here. Nobody is going to find the link by clicking on that random number. Jaobar (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and those are all versions of records! And I'm fully aware other openly-accessible links exists, I'm the one that provided most of them and removed/replaced closed access links. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I previously said that I would advocate for all SSRN links to be reinstated. Why would I waste my time making all of those changes only to have you revert them all? This is distracting from the point and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The question is about whether this new format helps or hinders people looking to find the actual articles. I still say that for citations where the published version is behind a paywall, the open access version (whether with publisher font or not) should be the first link available. Providing a link to a "version of record" that nobody on Wikipedia will access actually provides access to no version, just a paywall. Jaobar (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SSRN links are there, and clearly labelled as such, and clearly labelled as open access links. If you want to change the order of identifiers, you're welcomed to start a discussion at Help talk:CS1, and if you gain WP:CONSENSUS, the changes will be spread across Wikipedia automatically. But existing consensus is that identifiers are to be presented alphabetically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

About page Characterization of probability distributions
Dear Wikimedia Administrator, Please check my updated page about Characterization of probability distributions and if it is OK please remove is incomplete sign. Thank You. Žydrūnas VU (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, nor am I familiar with probability distributions know if it's OK to remove or not. I suggest asking the person who put the tag on, or asking at WP:WPMATH for help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank You for Your reply. I contact that person. You may delete this article.Žydrūnas VU (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Feed back
Hello Headbomb,

Greetings, many thanks for your earlier contributions. I recently updated my wiki Draft which offers solution to a long running problem in biology called "the species problem". The draft titled "Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis" is almost complete.

I will be happy if you would take a look at the draft. I will be also thankful if you could offer me your valuble feedbacks.

Thanking you, With kind regards, Joseph.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Jayabalan.joseph@undefined hi. I'm afraid I don't have much feedback to give you on the article. My only involvement was to run a script to fix and cleanup citation templates, and tidy up the wikitext in general. I'll run the script again, but if you want more feedback on this draft, I suggest asking at WP:BIOLOGY. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Spacetime cleanup — Limitations of wiki markup
Please don't change x TO x. Likewise, please don't change ct TO ct.


 * BEFORE ERRONEOUS CLEANUP: In Fig. 9, each line drawn parallel to the x axis represents a line of simultaneity for the unprimed observer. All events on that line have the same time value of ct. Likewise, each line drawn parallel to the x axis represents a line of simultaneity for the primed observer. All events on that line have the same time value of ct.
 * AFTER ERRONEOUS CLEANUP: In Fig. 9, each line drawn parallel to the x axis represents a line of simultaneity for the unprimed observer. All events on that line have the same time value of ct. Likewise, each line drawn parallel to the x axis represents a line of simultaneity for the primed observer. All events on that line have the same time value of ct.

Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Figured out how to do it without HTML. For x'  (followed by a space), I use x'  . The ct'  is at the end of a sentence, so I can use ct'.
 * Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Mmm, first time I run into this issue with AWB. I'll file a report. As for without html, a simple thing is x and ct, which gives x and ct. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that trick! :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Spam
Please do not reinsert spam links, as you did at Historiography of the British Empire. Wikipedia is not to be used to promote Amazon, or any other commercial entity. DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I echo this comment. Nobody is under any obligation to replace a sales page link with some other link, and sales page links are unambiguously inappropriate, not "convenient". We have the ISBN magic synax, use the ISBN if you want a convenient link. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These are not spam links, these are germane convenience link to assist WP:V and finding the actual source. No ISBNs were provided. Finish the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and abide by its consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies
My revert of your edit was a misclick on my watchlist apparently, I wasn't even aware that I had made that edit. Apologies! Fram (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Figured as much. No big deal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: George Zweig Edit
I think it is not necessary to say, "His father was a type of civil engineer known as a structural engineer." I think it is better to just write that his father was a structural engineer, but again this information is also unnecessary, so it can be fully omitted. If you want to include this sentence, talk more about his father, but George Zweig is not as popular as Einstein, Newton, or Poincare, so I personally feel to utter that importance is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.175.37 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Carl again
,, -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Dimitris Tsironis
Can you help me at the page Dimitris Tsironis? I have made a mistake and player's boxscore with caps and goals is after the external links. If you can, i will appreciate your help to put the boxscore after the headline career statistics. Thank you for your valuable time. Thanbla (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

FPUT problem
The 2008 article in Physics Today cited in the article called for the FPU problem to be renamed to the FPUT problem. While it has been slow to retroactively rename the problem to reflect the contributions of Tsingou, current sources call it by its new name. I updated the page to reflect the name I was taught in class and in recent literature. Here are some contemporary sources that reflect the name change: While it is true that the old literature refers to the FPU problem, the current community has increasingly embraced the name change and perhaps we should decide if Wikipedia should reflect this. --Blueclaw (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Advances in Chemical Physics, Vol 153
 * Leeds University lecture notes on FPUT
 * Study unravels long-held Fermi puzzle tied to nonlinear systems
 * That may be the case, if so, I suggest you use the WP:RM process to determine consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged and requested. Thank you. --Blueclaw (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Your careful work is appreciated for new people you support and gently correct.

Kmccook (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC) 


 * Not quite what I did to earn me this, but hey, thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!
Over the past week, I've seen your work on several articles that my students are working on. Thank you for your patience, forbearance, and hard work. We all appreciate it! WritingTeacherC (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. Again, not quite sure which articles in particular you're referring too, but thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)