User talk:Certes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Possible use of AWB?[edit]

Hello Certes. Could you give me some advice please? I'm thinking about using AWB to add joy to my life, but I'm a Mac user and before I follow the guidance on how to register and download a compatible version, I'd like to know what you think about a suitable task? {{main}} should not be used at a lead section, it is only appropriate for sections in the body of an article. An indiscriminate bot request for all articles may have adverse consequences, but semi-automation in a limited set of articles I think is feasible. What is required is for every article containing "United States presidential election in" in the title (e.g. 1992 United States presidential election in California), delete any code {{main|...}} that occurs before the lead. Is that a task AWB could handle? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Assuming that no one will object to the change, that is a perfect task for AWB. You can make the list simply from a wiki search on intitle: (though more sophisticated options are available) and it's a fairly simple regex substitution. I use AWB on Ubuntu, which is more Mac-like than Windows. It's usable but has a few rough edges, probably due to limitations in Wine rather than AWB. JWB is an alternative worth considering and could also handle this task. If you're looking for similar work, WP:AWB/TA usually has jobs waiting. Certes (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
That's great, thank you. I'll go ahead and register. I'm not looking for work just yet haha! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Remove URL redundant with identifier in autolinked citation[edit]

If you're referring to this edit, I agree with you and that's indeed the point of the edit: instead of going to an URL which may or may not work, we now link PMC which is always reliable. Nemo 12:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Yes, I suppose my beef is with the DOI resolution system. It is unfortunate that it leads us to a paywall when content is freely available elsewhere, but that's hardly the fault of those who insert the DOIs. We should be careful to preserve URLs when they provide a more accessible alternative to the DOI, though I agree that this was not the case for your edit. I'm also concerned about losing information for the future, when a DOI which works today might be diverted to greedy-middleman.com/insert-credit-card and a plain URL alongside would have continued to serve our readers well. Certes (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
We could use oadoi.org instead of doi.org. The Italian Wikipedia does. Nemo 16:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like a big improvement. We're treating the intermediary for these links like a sister project, and oadoi's values seem to align much more closely with Wikipedia's. I found the free link I mentioned on your talk page via their Unpaywall extension. Certes (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It's a big step though, so I think we're more likely to get there gradually. One step is to start using the links Unpaywall suggests us: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Autolinking would help because OAbot can add hdl automatically. Nemo 18:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

Hi there, Certes! Thank you so much for thanking me in that edit on List of numbers! I'm your friend now. Pedro Lucas Silva (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pedro Lucas Silva: You're very welcome. Wikignoming is an undervalued activity that helps our readers get the best out of Wikipedia's content. Adding free-to-read citation links unlocks important resources for readers who might otherwise hit a paywall and give up. Thanks again for your contributions. It's a friendly community here, so if you want any help, just leave a message on a relevant talk page and a subject expert should be along soon. Certes (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

😄 Pedro Lucas Silva (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism?[edit]

Hi. I am sorry to bother you, and I am absolutely not up for a fight over this, but I wondered about your vandalism warning on User talk:89.143.161.156. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that the edits are wrong and a royal pain to revert, but my guess was that this was some kind of good-faith attempt to do something they thought was useful or necessary, which seems to invoke Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism at the link from the template. What do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: On reflection, I think you're right and I failed to AGF here. I've toned down the warning, hopefully before the IP notices it. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Certes (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! That is exceedingly decent of you. Much appreciated. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This is because I hate seeing "(disambiguation)" placed into MY edits. Getting blocked from editing makes me feel depressed as a Wikipedian. If you send ME a message like THAT, It gets me be like warned/having account deleted in Roblox to me. Don't SEND me a message like that. Thank you.