Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Tax deduction for donations to a Wikimedia chapter and the Legal disclaimer

Hello. Russian tax code contains a tax deduction allowing natural persons to reduce their taxable income by the total amount they donated to nonprofit organizations including educational ones (more precisely, this means they can refund themselves up to 25 % of the tax their employers and other Russian-based tax agents paid for them in the year when they made the donations).

I'm thinking about suggesting in my Russophone Wikimedia community that a page be created on the Wikimedia Russia website with information about the said tax deduction. So, what I want to ask is would such a page be acceptable at all under the Wikimedia-wide legal disclaimer and if yes, what it appropriate format could be (e. g. one paragraph with short information about the deduction, and another with a phrase containing a link to the Legal disclaimer and an advice to contact the Russian tax service for any inquiries, and possibly the latter's hotline for taxpayers which is toll-free when called from any Russian phone number)?

Wikimedia Russia has been refusing foreign donations to avoid being classified as a foreign agent after Russia enacted that law in 2012. Since the chances of it reversing its position or the law being repealed are pretty low, I think that a page about the tax deduction could be an incentive potentially increasing donations from Russian citizens to the chapter. P.S. Sorry for being too wordy. --Синкретик (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Синкретик: I suggest you contact the WMF meta:Legal for this question, it is not something that the English Wikipedia editors would be best at answering for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How often does the article count on wikipedia.com get updated?

Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask, but this didn't seem like a question that would fit in with the WP:HD or WP:RD. Wikipedia.com states that the English Wikipedia has 5,994,000+ articles and since it's been a while since the six millionth article was reached, I was wondering if there's any available information on how often this is updated? I usually type in wikipedia.org and see the article-counter on the main page. I'm asking this question out of curiousity. Clovermoss (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: wikipedia.com is a redirect to wikipedia.org. It gets updates usually every few weeks see also phab:T128546. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local notice for NYC Women's History Month events

I have put in a request for a local banner notice for the New York metropolitan area to share the numerous Women's History Month / Art+Feminism events in March at m:CentralNotice/Request/Women's History Month and Art+Feminism NYC 2020.--Pharos (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article in french newspapers about a politician who "self improved" his page (on fr.wiki, en.wiki and likely others) since years

Hi, I hope that I posted at the right place (I am usually more active on wikidata or the french wikipedia). For french speaking folks, there was a article a few days ago titled "Sur Wikipédia, les vies rêvées de Juan Branco" ("On Wikipedia, the dreamed lives of Juan Franco"), in Le Figaro on the Juan Branco page. The french community have been discussing that on the talk page of the article among others, and a warning was placed on the english talk page. While self promotion is nothing new, that has been going on since a long time, with sock puppets allegations, repeated edit warring, push to create page since years, and even a story of email to a employer to get a contributor fired. So we figured this would warrant a more visible communication to the community as well, since the english and spanish Wikipedias were also impacted. If people can't access the article, we have a dedicated page for that fr:WP:ASPP, so folks should be able to contact someone who has. Also, my spanish skills are not good enough to write in spanish, but if someone could relay the info on es:Wikipedia:Café, that would be appreciated. --Misc (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Misc: I copied most of your message above to the conflict of interest noticeboard. - Bri.public (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learning how to write a good FAQ section for a talk page

It seems that FAQ sections are added on a case-by-case basis for questions or topics that are constantly recurring in talk pages. I'd like to learn how to add a fair, productive FAQ section for a topic and understand what the community thinking is on this.

What's the best way of contacting people who've done this before?

--ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov, I don't know if it's the best way, but you could check the edithistory of talkpages with FAQ:s, figure out who added/contributed to the FAQ, and talk to them at their talkpage, if they are still around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Draft_FAQ can give you a little inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On mobile, that draft FAQ collapsible box gets shoved into a separate “about this page” view. Pelagic (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Information: Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications

"Request for Information: Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications, Data and Code Resulting From Federally Funded Research". Federal Register. 19 February 2020.

For those who are in the US, the Office of Science and Technology Policy is taking public comment on making unclassified published research, digital scientific data, and code supported by the U.S. Government open to the public. Go and comment please. This aligns with our mission. GMG ^talk 23:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is profoundly important, so I am quoting the (public domain US federal) solicitation in full:

“

Request for Information: Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications, Data and Code Resulting From Federally Funded Research

A Notice by the Science and Technology Policy Office on 02/19/2020

DOCUMENT DETAILS Printed version: PDF Publication Date: 02/19/2020 Agency: Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Document Citation: 85 FR 9488 Page: 9488-9489 (2 pages) Document Number: 2020-03189 DOCUMENT STATISTICS Page views: 8,397 as of 03/02/2020 at 4:15 am EST

ACTION: Notice of request for information (RFI).

SUMMARY: OSTP, and the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Subcommittee on Open Science (SOS), are engaged in ongoing efforts to facilitate implementation and compliance with the 2013 memorandum Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research [1] and to address recommended actions made by the Government Accountability Office in a November 2019 report.[2] OSTP and the SOS continue to explore opportunities to increase access to unclassified published research, digital scientific data, and code supported by the U.S. Government. This RFI aims to provide all interested individuals and organizations with the opportunity to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring broad public access to the peer-reviewed scholarly publications, data, and code that result from federally funded scientific research.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 11:59 p.m. ET on March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in response to this notice may be submitted online to Lisa Nichols, Assistant Director for Academic Engagement, OSTP, at publicaccess@ostp.eop.gov. Email submissions should be machine-readable [pdf, doc, txt] and not copy-protected. Submissions should include “RFI Response: Public Access” in the subject line of the message.

Instructions: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Each individual or institution is requested to submit only one response. Submission must not exceed 5 pages in 12 point or larger font, with a page number provided on each page. Responses should include the name of the person(s) or organization(s) filing the comment. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies or electronic links of the referenced materials. No business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally identifiable information should be submitted in response to this RFI.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, please direct your questions to Lisa Nichols at publicaccess@ostp.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In February of 2013, OSTP issued the memorandum Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. The memorandum directed Federal agencies with more than $100M in research and development (R&D) expenditures to develop plans to make the results of federally funded unclassified research that are published in peer-reviewed publications, and digitally formatted scientific data, publicly available. Federal agency plans required that published work be made available following a twelve-month post-publication embargo period.

OSTP and the NSTC SOS continue to explore opportunities to make the knowledge, information and data generated by federally funded research more readily accessible to students, clinicians, businesses, entrepreneurs, researchers, technologists, and the general public who support these investments as a means to accelerate knowledge and innovation. Over the course of the last two years, OSTP has had nearly 100 meetings with stakeholders on open science, current policy on public access to the results of federally funded research, the evolution of scholarly communications, and access to data and code associated with published results. This RFI aims to expand on these consultations and provide all interested individuals and organizations with the opportunity to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring broad public access to the peer-reviewed scholarly publications, data and code that result from federally funded scientific research. OSTP is interested in perspectives on the following topics:

What current limitations exist to the effective communication of research outputs (publications, data, and code) and how might communications evolve to accelerate public access while advancing the quality of scientific research? What are the barriers to and opportunities for change? What more can Federal agencies do to make tax-payer funded research results, including peer-reviewed author manuscripts, data, and code funded by the Federal Government, freely and publicly accessible in a way that minimizes delay, maximizes access, and enhances usability? How can the Federal Government engage with other sectors to achieve these goals? How would American science leadership and American competitiveness benefit from immediate access to these resources? What are potential challenges and effective approaches for overcoming them? Analyses that weigh the trade-offs of different approaches and models, especially those that provide data, will be particularly helpful. Any additional information that might be considered for Federal policies related to public access to peer-reviewed author manuscripts, data, and code resulting from federally supported research.

Dated: February 12, 2020.

Sean Bonyun,

Chief of Staff, Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Footnotes

1. Retrieved from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

2. Retrieved from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/702847.pdf

[FR Doc. 2020-03189 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]

”

Please comment by March 16! EllenCT (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: is there any way to get the Wikimedia Foundation and/or board to make an official comment (ideally in support)? — Wug·a·po·des 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sending responses as individual Wikipedians I believe would be helpful as well. User:Katherine (WMF) would be the one to make the call on it from a WMF perspective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be in my talk page archives?

When making talk page archives, do I need to put in things like a GOCE newsletter or the signpost, or just the main stuff? Is there a policy page for making talk page archives? Emicho's Avenger (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emicho's Avenger: so policy-wise, unless you are making your archives by "moving" your talk page to a subpage you don't have to put anything at all in there. Standard convention is that if you use an archive page by copying your text to it, you keep all the discussions that include a real person - so it is safe to leave out anything that is bot-only like a newletter if you want. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any place I can upload a 1 Gb, CC NC 1.0, PDF?

Hello. Is there a place or a way I can upload a 1 Gb PDF released under the CC NC 1.0 licence in a Wiki-related website? I cannot upload it on Commons since the licence is non commercial only, and Wikipedia is limited to files of max. 100MB. Veverve (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veverve, the CC NC licence is non-free, so such files are not allowed in the Wikimedia projects. You should better use another website to publish the file. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve: The non-profit Internet Archive (upload page: https://archive.org/create/) would be a good fit, I'd say. Their mission is educational, and their licensing requirement boils down to things "you have the right to share", for which CC-NC should do just fine. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 12:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless New Page Patrol Advertisement

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if anyone has time available.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; and Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task, even 2 or 3 a day can make a huge difference.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WMF's summary of our feedback on recommendations posted

We may have until March 6, 2020 to respond to this: m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Reports/Summary of Movement Conversations 2020. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we respond? Please provide a link. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime... could someone explain what a “shareholder” is? I assume they are not using the term in its financial sense... Is it just a fancy way of saying “editors”? Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "shareholder" does not appear in the document? --Yair rand (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "stakeholder" was the intended term. – Teratix ₵ 02:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link: m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Reports/Summary of Movement Conversations 2020. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

♦♓︎■︎♑︎♎︎♓︎■︎♑︎💧

❄♒︎♓︎💧 ✋💧 ♦♓︎■︎♑︎♎︎♓︎■︎♑︎💧