User talk:Oa01/Archive 1

WikiJournals
Hi OA. In case you'd not come across them before, I thought you might be interested in the current wikipedia-integrated academic journals at WikiJournal User Group. There are currently three journals in the group: The concept is to couple the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 03:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WikiJournal of Medicine (flagship)
 * WikiJournal of Science (STEM topics)
 * WikiJournal of Humanities (arts, humanities and soc. sciences)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thank you. -- Oa01 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities you complain about the deletion of a list of 600+ items. Elsewhere you are doing the same for other lists. I support you starting a conversation but I would like to ask that you do this on a talk page.
 * I encourage you to look beyond the context of what you are doing and open access in general and consider how Wikipedia manages lists. The policy is not consistent and confusing despite attempts to collate the equivalent of 1000s of paper pages of discussion over 1000s of instances of people negotiating how Wikipedia should manage a list in a certain case. What you are experiencing is what tens of thousands of people before you have seen.
 * Despite your perception of conflict you would be very hard pressed to find anyone in the world who cared as much for your success in developing open access content than Randykitty. I get the idea that you see this user as a barrier, when to my view it seems like you lack awareness of Wikipedia editing rules regarding lists.
 * My recommendation for the quickest and easiest path to accomplish what I think you are doing is to post your information into Wikidata. Wikidata is not a certain publishing solution for the present, but everyone does agree that lists go there and most people agree that eventually many people will access Wikipedia's lists through Wikidata. The quality control requirements of Wikipedia request more robust sourcing than what likely exists in this field of interest, which is what I see as the major source of the conflict here. I hope that you can consider that Wikipedia's rules, and not personal conflict, is the major barrier here.
 * There is a perennial debate (inclusionist versus exclusionist) where one side says that Wikipedia should eliminate any minimum standard of quality to ingest more content, when the other side says that there must always be a minimum standard. I appreciate your interest in open access and want you to find your place to contribute because obviously you have access to insight and high quality content. At the same time some of the practices here happen for a reason and people will not be quick to change for someone who requests change but does not demonstrate understanding of why the rules are one way and what would happen if they were another.
 * If I help help in some way then I would. I like you being here engaged. What kind of conversation would you like to have, and what kind of editors would you like to meet for a discussion?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There was another user who used to do the same thing, didn't know the rules of WP, created lots of lists, argued with editors who disagreed with their editing and also worked in Creative Commons, Public Domain, as could be seen in their very first edit to a WP Spanish article with comments as P2prules, translated here to "I work in Creative Commons, public domain, copyleft. Stop reverting my edits!!!" They were disruptive in English wiki and were banned indefinitely. I suggest you consider the comments made by editors on your page regarding the creation of lists on WP. Thank you. the eloquent peasant (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Indiscriminate lists

 * Background: Between 24 March and 1 April 2018 I created six articles: "List of open access repositories in Africa", "List of open access repositories in the Americas", "List of open access repositories in Australia", "List of open access repositories in Canada", "List of open access repositories in Croatia", and "List of open access repositories in India". At the same time I created redirects for individual countries included in the regional lists (Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia; Botswana, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe; Costa Rica, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela). The six articles were nominated for deletion on 1 April 2018, and all deleted on 9 April. No particular reason was included in the documentation, so I assumed the objection was to stand-alone articles of lists of open access repositories. The discussion that followed, below, arose after some editors began deleting large blocks of information about repositories from other articles. -- Oa01 (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I think it is clear that several editors think that your addition of these indiscriminate lists is unwarranted. Instead of edit-warring and looking for ways to get around this, take it to the talk page of those articles. In addition, it's perhaps a bit overdone to list every edit with which you disagree on the article talk page. All this can easily be seen from the article history. You might give Blue Rasberry's comments above some more consideration. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that my lists of examples of open access repositories and journals are "indiscriminately" selected? And more importantly, given your recent disruptive editing of my contributions about open access, why do you simply delete content without first engaging in dialogue with the editor responsible? Why not assume good faith? -- Oa01 (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to assume any lack of good faith. As for the lists, the AfD where all those lists were deleted was clear enough that this is unwanted cruft. I think the question here is more: why do you insist on re-adding this stuff to WP in the face of all that opposition? It is you who is editing against consensus, so it is you who needs to explain themselves, not me. --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are examples of disruptive, war-like, edits you made on 10 April 2018 without prior discussion with the editor: Open access in Canada, 10:11; Open access in Canada, 14:51; Open access in Italy, 10:06; Open access in Italy, 14:56. In general, more collaboration would be appreciated, and more productive too. -- Oa01 (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please get familiar with WP:BOLD before accusing others of war-like behavior. The war-like behavior here is your insistence in the face of consensus to insert this cruft, then re-insert it when it is removed. There was a discussion at AfD and combined with the edit summaries, that should have been explanation enough. Also, please note that the edits that you listed also contained important corrections (for example, removing redlinks or inappropriate interwiki links from "see also", interwikilinks in superscripts, and other unusual stuff - see Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, lists of open access journals and repositories are not Listcruft, in my opinion. They are crucial for understanding open access in various national contexts, and quite worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. I include the lists to illuminate the topic -- a topic which is relatively new, and easily misunderstood.
 * Listings of open access journals and repositories existed without challenge starting in mid-March 2018 as part of several articles about open access in Germany, France, Spain, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, and other countries. Open access in Russia, for instance, was viewed nearly 100 times on the day it was created, and no one objected to it or its lists of journals and repositories.
 * No one objected until 1 April 2018. The few users who then voted against a stand-alone list of repositories did so on a variety of bases, but ultimately the challenge was to a stand-alone list, not to the content. I have revised my subsequent edits accordingly. So, again: Why do you assume that my recently added examples of open access repositories and journals are "indiscriminately" selected? -- Oa01 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As the editor who nominated all of the List of open access repositories in .. articles, which were subsequently deleted per consensus, I firmly agree with Randykitty. The lists of repositories and journals are a clear example of what Wikipedia is not, a directory, a collection of web links nor indiscriminate list of information. It is an encyclopedia. Suggest that the editor look at other Wiki forums suggested by other members to present the content they want to publish. Ajf773 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , My concern regards the repeated deletions of revisions of selected examples. The examples are not "indiscriminately" chosen. Instead, they help to describe and explain the topic, just as lists of Star Trek episodes help encyclopedia readers to understand  the television programme Star Trek, or lists of schools help explain education in India.
 * The broad subject of open access publishing perhaps may not warrant stand-alone, country-level lists about repositories and journals at present, but certainly short lists of a few select examples within a country-level article about open access are reasonable.
 * Some editors can be overzealous in deleting content in order to improve Wikipedia. I believe that is the case here. -- Oa01 (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "a few select examples..." Based on what? Your own judgement? As for the rest of your remarks above, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. For open access repositories, in addition to citations in standard directories such as OpenDOAR and ROAR, the examples were chosen using the following criteria:
 * Notability: Does the host institution have a Wikipedia article? Is the repository example discussed in the literature? Does the literature describe it as influential? innovative? otherwise noteworthy or important?
 * Geographic coverage: Does the group of examples represent a range of geographic areas in the country? (in other words not just metropolitan areas, but also rural provinces)
 * Linguistic coverage: Does the group of examples include the country's main and secondary languages? (eg English and French in Canada)
 * Subject coverage: Does the group of examples show the range of academic subjects collected in the country? in science, social science, and humanities? -- Oa01 (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain how WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are relevant to your deletions of my revisions, especially in light of the above description of my decision-making process? Thank you. -- Oa01 (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources saying seomthing like "Foo directory represent a range of geographic areas", etc? No? Then your "decision making process" is more or less the definition of OR and SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to review Editorial discretion to understand how my edits are neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH ("Editorial discretion allows editors to evaluate sources, balance claims, and otherwise distill bodies of information into accurate, verifiable and comprehensive articles; accordingly with the neutral point of view policy, we need to accord appropriate weight to all information we include, to make sure we represent a topic properly and without distorting emphasis on any one part....It is not original research to make judgement calls on what content to include or not include, how to frame an issue or claim, or what claims and subjects are suitable for Wikipedia. We are not here to robotically compile facts and citations according to a strict set of rules, we are here to create and edit an encyclopedia. This task requires the application of judgement and discretion in order to create a neutral and readable encyclopedia"). -- Oa01 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

And similarly, you may want to review what is written about independent reliable sources (which is a guideline, not just an essay like Editorial discretion, and even the essay stresses the importance of sources). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Experiment: Open access in Italy --> , I propose we try an experiment in civility. It might provide a path forward for us as non-warring, constructively collaborative editors. Here is my intended next edit to the article Open access in Italy. Instead of simply deleting the entire edit, why don't you indicate which part(s) you dislike, and most importantly, why you object? Here are some tools: -- Oa01 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Off topic
 * Importance section
 * Verify credibility
 * Verify credibility
 * I would be more willing to do this, but for the fact that you keep accusing me of not being civil. What you need to understand is that disagreeing with somebody does not mean that you're not civil. Undoing an edit is not a civility issue. From the beginning, you have been treated respectfully and civil and I'm getting pretty tired from your wikilawyering. Posting diffs on talk pages of all the edits that you disagree with points to some serious issues with article ownership and a battlefield mentality. As for the sandbox draft, I don't see how it is any different from before. It's an indiscriminate list of repositories, with you having made a personal selection that as far as can be seen from the draft is not based on any reliable sources but on your personal preferences. I don't see how any of the tools that you suggest are applicable as the whole section has no place in an article. --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I propose we seek outside opinions. -- Oa01 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting to the 3O board is a great way to get an uninvolved perspective. Do it!  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I await reply from before initiating the process. -- Oa01 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need my permission. However, I think that an WP:RFC might be more appropriate. Given the large number of articles involved, RFC gives a wider range of opinions than 3O. --Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A WP:3O has been requested regarding lists of examples within articles, and about the editing process itself. -- Oa01 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm declining the third opinion request as there are more than 2 users involved in this dispute. I would recommend following User:Randykitty's suggestion to open an RFC on the matter so that everyone involved (and anyone else with an interest) can put forward their position and hopefully a consensus can be determined. Iffy★Chat -- 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, one or two editors' deletions of content about open access publishing appear to be more censorial than encyclopedic. In various country-level articles about open access, I have decided to include names of individual collections of scholarship (i.e. "repositories"). The names provide specific detail to the topic, and ultimately, more meaning overall. The topic in general is not without controversy, and readers of Wikipedia will be better served with more information, rather than less. -- Oa01 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edits per policy as wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of weblinks. I've left the references. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, a list of names of collections of digital scholarship and their host institutions is entirely appropriate for inclusion in a country-level article about open access. Here are some current, related Wikipedia articles that provide counterexamples to your interpretation of Wikipedia's "not a directory" policy.
 * List of the largest libraries in the United States
 * List of libraries in Seattle
 * List of national and state libraries
 * List of schools under the aegis of the Delhi Public School Society
 * List of schools in Delhi affiliated with CBSE -- Oa01 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * List of fake news websites
 * Radio in Sri Lanka
 * List of radio stations in the Republic of Macedonia
 * List of jazz radio stations in the United States -- Oa01 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * List of online digital musical document libraries
 * List of academic journals published in Serbia -- Oa01 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oa01, please stop wasting your time adding these link farms. Those list articles are based on entries that each have demostrated notability, something your lists of repositories completed fails to provide. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please consider noting your objections via inline tags, which are visible within the main article and invite wider debate, rather than simply deleting large blocks of content. Thanks. -- Oa01 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oa01, what is customary is: somebody (in the present case: you) boldly adds something to an article. Somebody else objects and reverts. You don't agree with that, so your reaction is not to revert the reversion or just ignore the objection by trying to go around it, but you take it to the talk page. Treating someone like Ajf773 with about 10,000 edits and 4 years of experience as a newbie is not really helpful. Despite your impressive number of edits, you've been here only for a few months yet, so I recommend that you get a better feel for how things are being done here, before lecturing others. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Why persist in objecting to repeated deletions of good, encyclopedic content in country-level articles about open access to scholarly communication? In part, because Wikipedia policies such as those mentioned by deleters (e.g., WP:NOT, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTLINKFARM) are not applicable here. See above examples of similar content, such as List of fake news websites (with essential URLs) or List of libraries in Seattle. Article sections with listings of open access repositories have been modeled on these articles, which editors seem to agree are up to standard. -- Oa01 (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oa01, there was another user who used to do the same thing, didn't know the rules of WP, created lots of lists, argued with editors who disagreed with their editing, didn't add reliable sources to content, and also worked in Creative Commons, Public Domain, as could be seen in their very first edit to a WP Spanish article with comments as P2prules, translated here to "I work in Creative Commons, public domain, copyleft. Stop reverting my edits!!!" They were disruptive in English wiki and were banned indefinitely. I suggest you consider the comments made by editors regarding the creation of lists on WP. Thank you.the eloquent peasant (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks. -- Oa01 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online)


A tag has been placed on SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Walt Crawford
Please don't remove tags from articles without addressing the issue raised. If you believe Crawford meets the notability criteria, please state why in the text of the article. Adding references to reviews of books he's written doesn't help except to prove he's written them. Have a look at Notability_(people) Deb (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. The author is notable-- I just need a bit of time to find suitable references for this brand-new article. See the WorldCat list of holding libraries of his books to get a sense of his influence. -- Oa01 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

BASE search machine
Hi, I left a message for you at Talk:Open access in Ukraine and would appreciate if you could provide an answer there. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again, in the absence of a direct answer, I'll assume that you agree with me and when I find a moment, I'll delete this phrase from all the articles in which it has been inserted. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online)


A tag has been placed on SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Washington state legislatures


The article List of Washington state legislatures has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "WP:NOTSTAT and very little utility in knowing the dates of various legislative sessions"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Sounder Bruce  20:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"TagTeam (software)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TagTeam (software). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Disclosure statements, 2018-2023
2022-2023: Most contributions from 3 January 2022 - 19 July 2023 were made in the course of work for the US-based nonprofit initiative Invest in Open Infrastructure, a project of Code for Science & Society. I focused on scholarly communication. As a paid employee I aimed to uphold the five pillars and to act in the best interest of Wikipedia and its sister projects. If other editors saw problems in my editing they were encouraged to contact me through my user talk page. -- 14:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

2021: Contributions made from 25 September - 9 December 2021 by this user were part of an effort of the US-based nonprofit initiative Invest in Open Infrastructure, a project of Code for Science & Society. As a short-term project employee I aimed to strictly abide by Wikipedia's accepted practices on conflicts of interest, neutrality, and notability, especially when editing Wikimedia content related to digital infrastructure, knowledge infrastructure, open science, open-source software, public technology, research infrastructure, or scientific information infrastructure. I strove to work in the best interest of Wikipedia and its sister projects. If other editors identified any problems in my editing they were encouraged to contact me through my user talk page. -- Oa01 (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

2018: Contributions made from 23 January - 31 August 2018 by this user were part of the Harvard Open Access Project, based at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society in the US. As a short-term project employee I aimed to uphold the five pillars of Wikipedia. -- Oa01 (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)