User talk:Fmenczer

On open access and quality of publication venues

I read that paper, why are you wasting it on Open Access journals? Granted the results are not math heavy, but there is room for higher level mathematical expansion. I can see a clear route through SEM models to better understand the pathway modeling plus SEM models work well in these types of Social Science fields. I could also see it as a Neuro Pathway Modeling problem. Also, you could compare OWS to other social media connections and how they grow. A comparison to political discussion is interesting, but there might be a generalizable model which could be created as to how social media grows out of high density population areas. The paper makes interesting observations, but does not expand on them, such as the user from Kentucky. Can one user be that impactful? The Lit Review needs to be expanded as well. This paper could be so much more. Arzel (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions about the paper. However I am afraid you are misinformed and mistaken about Open-access journals. PLOS ONE is a very high impact journal that happens to be Open Access, and I mentioned a few others (Nature Communications, Nature Scientific Reports, etc). Even the Proc. Natl. Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has open access now. And OA is required by some US federal funding sources (NIH). The publication models (open access or not) are completely orthogonal from measures of quality, as I tried to explain on your user talk page. Now, because OA is getting popular, a bunch of scammers are creating for-profit junk under the disguise of OA, and maybe that has given you the wrong impression that OA=low quality. That is simply false. I am not saying that OA=high quality either. There is plenty of low quality non-OA junk and viceversa. Fmenczer (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Fmenczer. All or some of your addition(s) to Email bomb 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) 19:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an author of the source paper with permission to reuse my own text, therefore there is no copyright or plagiarism issue. However I rewrote the explanation of the defense paraphrasing the original paper without verbatim quotation. The source was already cited. Thanks. Fmenczer (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]