I.yeckehzaare

Welcome!

Hello, I.yeckehzaare, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! ! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. Happy editing! Michael Barera (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your message. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ExperIdeasBot

Hey, our Bot is now live! I.yeckehzaare (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi Iman,

I am happy to see you on Wikipedia.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.180.213 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi I.yeckehzaare! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 02:51, Tuesday, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Automated addition of references and further reading?

With this edit you recently added the following citation to Economy of the European Union, with the edit summary "Added a verified reference".

• De Mooij, R. A., & Devereux, M. P. (2009). Alternative Systems of Business Tax in Europe: An applied analysis of ACE and CBIT Reforms. European Commission.

The claimed reference was added under the heading "The following links are used for the GDP growth and GDP totals (IMF):"

Could you explain

• what the reference has to do, specifically, with GDP growth and GDP totals
• what it has to do with such a general subject as the economy of the European Union
• how it helps to verify the statements made in the article
• what the edit summary is intended to convey (i.e. what you have verified).

You also added a "further reading" item to Taxation in Germany that deals with a somewhat recondite issue in this context. The citation apparently links to a PDF file that may have security issues.

Could you explain on what basis you are adding citations and links to articles that you have apparently not edited before? Are you using some sort of approved bot or other authorized automated process? --Boson (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now found Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ExpertIdeasBot but am unsure whether the bot is still in a trial phase. If I understand correctly, the bot merely semi-automates the process of adding the reference but the individual domain expert who uses the bot decides what to add to which article, and the edit is made under the name of the domain expert, in this case yourself. My concern is that the additions themselves may not be appropriate and have been made without adequate knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and practice with respect to references and further reading. I have so far only looked at the edits made to articles on my watchlist, and they all seem somewhat problematic, though the one to European debt crisis might be marginal. --Boson (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Boson, I am not a bot. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so I apologize if I did not follow Wikipedia rules.

I think the article on "Economies of the European Union" is missing a section on business tax. It might fit under the "Companies" section. However, as the whole article is under a template, I was not able to find a way to add this reference under "Companies". This was the only section in references section that I was able to add the citation."

For the "Taxation in Germany" reference, I did not realize that the PDF file may have security issues. I found that APA formatted reference and the pdf link in Google Scholar. I actually downloaded the PDF file and read it on my own computer without any problem. I'll appreciate it if you let me know how to change the link to be more secure.

Thank you for your concern. — I.yeckehzaare (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what the exact problem with the PDF file was. However, my security system reported "suspicious PDF" and "threat removed" while processing the file. I suspect it thought it had detected the potential to execute code from within the PDF. It may be an issue with my setup, of course.

The added link in Economy of the European Union was put under the heading "References". References (as opposed to further reading and external links) are intended for verification of content added by the editor. Since you did not add content, it would be unusual to add a reference. And since you say the article is "missing" a section on business tax, there is even less reason to add a reference. It could be made somewhat more complicated by the fact that there are two types of references, and this article has both:

• Footnote references, which are entered where the footnote cue is to appear and are automatically moved to the tagged footnote location, for instance indicated by the Reflist template.
• General references, which are given as verification of existing content but without specifying which statements they refer to. They might be appropriate for very short articles or for articles where all the information comes from a very limited number of sources.

In this case, however, it is not a reference in the Wikipedia sense, so it doesn't belong there at all.

I do not really see sufficient justification for including the link under "Further reading". This section is intended for literature recommended by the editor for readers interested in the topic of the article. This is usually a fairly short list. My rule of thumb would be to consider how long the list would be if you included all articles and books that are equally useful and relevant to the topic ( Economy of the European Union). Wikpedia is not a directory. Another consideration is that high-level articles like "Economy of ..." do not normally go into sub-topics such as taxation, especially taxation levied by the individual member or constituent states.

I have similar concerns about the addition to Taxation in Germany of an article that aims to "assess whether politicians manipulate the timing of tax rate changes in a strategic way to maximize reelection prospects" using "the German local business tax as a testing ground". If we added all articles that were just as relevant to taxation in Germany, we would probably have a very long list. I am not sure of your criteria for adding such a link. If you wrote a short paper describing "Taxation in Germany", would you list an article researching the possibility of manipulating tax rates under "Further reading"?--Boson (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Boson, Thank you for your detailed explanation. I agree with you that the references do not belong and will remove them now. — I.yeckehzaare (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Infography and domain experts

I discovered your user page via this edit to "European debt crisis", which is on my watchlist. Your expressed interest in "domain experts" indicates to me that you would probably find this website to be useful.

• The Infography

—Wavelength (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wavelength, thank you so much for this interesting link. I found the website very helpful, but actually did not fully understand how to leverage that to improve my contribution to Wikipedia. I'll appreciate it if you explain a little more about it. — I.yeckehzaare (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you contact the editor (http://www.fieldsofknowledge.com/specialist/contacteditor.html) and explain your research, then the editor might give you contact information for each expert represented in Infography. To each expert that you contact, you can provide an explanation of your research and a prepared questionnaire.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wavelength, Thank you so much for your suggestion and clarification. I'll definitely try that. — I.yeckehzaare (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

ExpertIdeasBot

I'm intrigued by ExpertIdeasBot. Would you mind putting some description of the bot, such as its purpose and where it gets its input, on the bot's user page. I think lots of editors who see the bot's edits would benefit from such information. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Deli nk, thank you so much for expressing your interest in our project. Per your request, I added a short description of ExpertIdeasBot in its Talkpage. I hope it helps. Please give us feedback about the bot posts and help us to improve this project. — I.yeckehzaare (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Papers you have been adding...

In general, books and articles in the "further reading" section of Wikipedia entries should be significant contributions, or helpful overviews and surveys on the subject. For numerous articles you added, like on "Discrete Choice", "Error correction model", or "Regression Discontinuity Design", this is not the case. You added papers of little importance, often mere applications of the concepts described in the Wikipedia article. Could you please explain why you did that? --bender235 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

bender235, thank you for your concern. Well, I thought people who read the further reading section, look for more recent research about the topic of the page. From my point of view, those are relevant and interesting papers. If you think they are not useful, please remove them. That's totally fine. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello I.yeckehzaare, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Yan Chen (Professor) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, I'll appreciate it if you tell me the specific sentences that I have copied from copyrighted materials without attribution. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of attribution. We are not allowed to publish copyright materials without the express permission of the copyright holder. Material was copied from this copyright website into the article Yan Chen (Professor) in violation of the copyright policy of this website. As much as possible, all content has to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, sure. From now on, I'll try my best to follow these guidelines. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

ExpertIdeasBot

ExpertIdeasBot has made extensive suggestions at Talk:2010_Flash_Crash#Dr._Mizrach.27s_comment_on_this_article, which certainly don't look as if they were written by a bot. I replied to them before checking the username and finding that it is (supposedly) a bot. Maproom (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Maproom, we are a group of researchers at the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University, and University of Pittsburgh. We developed a system that matches research publications with Wikipedia articles and recommends related Wikipedia articles to domain experts to review and comment on. You can find more information about our project and our ExpertIdeas bot here. In terms of Talk:2010_Flash_Crash#Dr._Mizrach.27s_comment_on_this_article, I just responded to your questions in the Talk page. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. I don't plan to get involved in editing that article myself. But Dr. Mizrach's proposals involve mainly the removal of relevant and referenced content, and it therefore seems likely that they will be ignored. I am not questioning his expertise or competence, or the quality of his proposals. But it's a pity that he has spent his time on this, and then the bot has written something on the talk page which is likely to be ineffective. Maproom (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

re: Appreciation for promoting our study

Great to hear from you. Two things. First, we always link to the reviewed material. Unless your paper was accidentally made public, in which case you should contact User:Tbayer_(WMF), it seems to me it is no different from an average draft, pre-print or such. Second, I find the sentence "the economists participating in this study were not interested in learning MediaWiki Modeling Language nor the norms governing Wikipedia community" very succinct and interesting, and I hope you'll incorporate it into your final paper. Third, regarding the value of unsolicited peer review, you raise interesting points. Peer review is useful, but editors rarely pay much attention to talk (because so much of it is low quality). You could try to use informative titles such as "Expert review by". But another problem is that it may and will take years before someone interesting in doing any serious work on a topic comes along. Until that happens, the review will be gathering dust, and there is little we can do. Significant percentage of the populace (and experts) may use Wikipedia, but for the reasons you also know pretty well, very few contribute back (I also published a paper on that: [1] through I was a bit disappointed it didn't get cited by yours). Your research is valuable in showing one of the ways through which we can increase expert participation, but in the end, improving the peer review efficiency, while valuable, is only a dressing to the major problem, which is the lack of experts (or volunteers in general) to write articles. Personally, I doubt this will change until promotion committees and such start awarding promotion points for Wikipedia contribution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, thank you for your response. You have mentioned very good points. I appreciate it and I'll definitely consider your points in our paper. The main problem we face right now is that we have posted more than 1,500 comments to Economic Wikipedia articles and many of them are proposing very straightforward modifications, but most Wikipedians who edit those pages have not addressed these comments in the main Wikipedia articles yet. What do you think we can do to encourage Wikipedians to address these comments in the Wikipedia main articles?

In terms of contacting User:Tbayer_(WMF), I do not understand why you asked me to contact him/her? I think the paper is not publically available anymore. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding talk pages, it's an interesting point. I am not surprised. Few people read talk pages. It would generally require somebody deeply interested in the subject to look for reviews on the talk page, and since so much of talk page content is semi-relevant to the article, experienced editors IMHO usually ignore most content there anyway. This is a structural problem with Wikipedia workflow, but IMHO unsolicited reviews - once that are not posted during WP:Peer review/WP:GAN/WP:FAC process - are a sad waste of time, as they are unlikely to get noticed and acted upon, at least in any timely manner. Another way of looking at it: if nobody cares enough to edit topic X significantly, posting a review of the topic to the topic's talk page which has very low visibility is not going to change anything, much. I cannot think of any simple solution. The only thing that makes some sense is to make the reviews visible (use a special template, bold letters in the heading...) and hope that when, eventually, in few months, years or decades, the article does attract attention of someone willing to improve it enough to take it to PR/GAN/FAC, they will notice the review and benefit from it. Pretty much, if the scholars in question cannot be bothered to edit, just write a review, well, it's going to be about as low-visibility and low-helpful as real academic peer reviews are... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding contacting TB, he is the editor of the WRN, so you should ask him to delay the publication of the review. Or it may be published with the broken link... the last time I checked the review it was scheduled for publication. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

(For reference, the preceding part of this conversation is here.)

Hi I.yeckehzaare, very interesting research! Hopefully the publication of this review in our newsletter will prompt other community members and researchers to share their thoughts on the question you posed (how to leverage these expert comments into actual improvements), but to briefly share my two cents, having - coincidentally - looked at Special:Contributions/ExpertIdeasBot at various times last year and wondered about the same thing:

I think that, on an abstract level, the problem here is that this input was not integrated into actual, existing curation processes. Or that it was mistakenly assumed that reading and responding to unsolicited talk page comments is part of many editors' routine. The standard way to give input on Wikipedia articles is to edit them directly rather than merely commenting on them. (The "SOFIXIT" slogan kind of embodies this, discouraging comments in favor of edits.) And the community has long-established processes focused on addressing this kind of more urgent input.

So to solve this conundrum, you would need to think about how to bring these expert comments into a working process. As professor Konieczny pointed out above, there are actually already processes (FAC etc.) specifically geared towards soliciting and addressing peer review comments. One could offer editors who (plan to) submit their article work to these processes to solicit an expert review that coincides with the community review. Another option would be to build a new process that attracts editors who are specifically interested in helping to integrate expert comments, and makes it easy for them to do so. For example, one could create some kind of central noticeboard where notifications about new expert comments are posted, to make it easy for those editors to find them. This could be modeled on the various edit requests boards. It has to be said that such noticeboards can have backlog problems of their own, so there is no guarantee of success here. But with some community organizing effort it might be possible to get enough volunteers interested ("help Nobelists contribute!").

Coming back to professor Konieczny's review of the preprint that is scheduled to appear in the upcoming issue of the research newsletter (we have been experiencing delays recently, but should be able to resume soon):

• Reading the discussion above, I understand that it has now been established that the reviewed paper was published online deliberately and not accidentally, correct? It was also indexed by Google Scholar, we received an alert about it on February 1.
• Regarding your concern that "we have not finalized nor published the results of the study": We are regularly featuring research in the newsletter that is still only available in preprint form. While it is important to distinguish such published material from fully peer reviewed results (please let us know in case you feel that the review fails in that regard), one of the main goals of this newsletter is to stimulate discussion about research among the community and researchers with similar expertise, and that can be especially valuable while it's still possible to take such input into account for the finalized paper.
• On a practical matter, our reviewer capacity is limited and we can't afford to spike already written reviews on a whim. Is there a timeframe for when the finalized version of the paper will be published? If we know it is expected to come out within the next few weeks and Piotrus is willing to update the review then (to address any potential differences between the versions), I think we could hold off until the next issue; otherwise we will publish it now.
• As a side note: While this research newsletter prides itself on its transparent, public editing process, I must also point out that it is a bit unusual for academic researchers to directly edit (make deletions, change examples etc.) draft of reviews of their publications.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Tbayer (WMF), thank you so much for your very helpful comments. At the moment, we have hired a number of Economics undergraduate students to evaluate the quality of comments posted by experts. We will finalize the paper and publish it after the review and analysis process. Also, the review process in Economics journals is really time-consuming. So, I'll appreciate it if you postpone publishing it for a year, then we'll share the final publication with you. The review and comments from Wikipedians' community will be very valuable for us and will help us in the design of our next studies. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Unfortunately, as indicated earlier, holding off this already written review for a year (and then having to go through it again to update it according to the changes in the published version) is not really justifiable, considering the work that already went into it on the one hand and the value for our readers on the other hand. (As a general note about about academic practices online,when publishing such a draft that is expected to differ significantly from the finalized paper, it might be worth annotating it with "draft", "do not cite" [i.e. do not refer to the information in other academic publications] etc.) We are looking forward to highlighting the finalized paper again after it comes out in 2018.

While the Signpost is still dormant in general, this edition of the research newsletter has now been published via our usual channels; there's already a comment about the ExpertIdeas research in the comments section of the blog version. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • I like User:Tbayer (WMF)'s idea of linking the reviews with the ongoing FA/GA. If we could create a database of experts by topic that would be willing to review Wikipedia articles, and then ping them each time an article in their area is up for a review, then they could write timely reviews that would be certainly incorporated by editors (well, assuming they'd respond to a ping within few days). This could be done through WikiProject framework of keywords, already applied to stuff like Wikipedia:Article alerts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Tbayer (WMF), thank you for your valuable comments. However, I doubt one can "create a database of experts by topic that would be willing to review Wikipedia articles." Incentivizing experts is actually very difficult and I believe their one-time contribution through our system is not sustainable in long-term. In the third phase of our study, we invited those who have commented on the Wikipedia articles to go through a very short tutorial about how to edit Wikipedia articles. It turned out that very few of them clicked the link to the tutorial. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood. That's another interesting result!

To clarify, the database idea was not mine - Piotrus deserves the credit. My suggestion was rather in the direction of targeting those one-time expert contributions to opportunities where they are likely to have the most impact on Wikipedia's editorial processes. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Curious about your bot

Hello user:I.yeckehzaare I'm very curious about the history and work you and your team have spearheaded with ExpertIdeasBot -- are you only working with economists or other academics too? Would you be interested in a chat? I'm developing a project with librarians and want to learn more about what's worked and what your challenges have been with this endeavor. Please reach out to me at jonesm at oclc dot org. Sincerely, Monikasj (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Inactive bot notice

Hello, this is notice that you have one or more registered bot accounts that will be retired and deactivated. See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Inactive_bots_-_February_2022. Should you wish to reactivate your bot please reply there within the week. Else, no action is needed. Should you wish to reactivate the bot in the future, please file a request at WP:BRFA. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 10:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)