User talk:RGimenez: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:You say "It is not advertising since these projects are public funded and to be of high public interest". Whether the projects are publicly funded or not makes no difference: Wikipedia's policy is that it does not accept articles that promote anything, whether commercial, charitable, publicly funded, or anything else. Some relevant information is available at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause]]. The article was clearly written from the point of view of someone wishing to publicise the subject, and indicate to us what a good job it was doing, not from a neutral, objective point of view. I am not sure what you mean by "the righfulness of the project". If you mean the fact that the project is good and worthy then I think it is covered by what I have already said. If you mean the truthfulness of the information that was in the article then that is irrelevant, as lack of verifiability was not the reason for deletion. I see that elsewhere you have stated "I am technical manager of the project and entailed by the rest of the Consortium to write the article. It has also been review by the other partners taking part in the project." It is a matter of experience that people involved in a subject in this way frequently cannot stand back and see their editing from the point of view of an outsider, so that they often appear to be sincerely unable to see the promotional nature of their writing. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing of an article by people with a personal connection to its subject. You say "I have follow several examples under European Projects Category and I have made it look exactly the same." I assume you mean that you have tried to make the article similar to other existing articles. If so, this is a very common approach by newcomers to writing for Wikipedia, and an understandable one, but unfortunately it is not always helpful, for at least two reasons. Firstly, there may be differences which make a significant difference, but the significance of which is not seen by someone unused to Wikipedia's standards, particularly to one who because of personal involvement cannot see them objectively. Secondly, using other articles as a model is not always useful for reasons indicated at [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. Finally, I should mention that the administrator who deleted the article gave as a reason "substantial copyright violation of the organisation's website". There are procedures for releasing copoyright material for use by Wikipedia (an unknown editor coming along and posting a message here saying "I am the copyright owner" is not sufficient, for obvious reasons). I could give you links to the relevant instructions, but I doubt that doing so would be helpful, as material from an organisation's website is almost invariably unsuitable for other reasons anyway, such as being promotional in character, as in this case. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 08:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
:You say "It is not advertising since these projects are public funded and to be of high public interest". Whether the projects are publicly funded or not makes no difference: Wikipedia's policy is that it does not accept articles that promote anything, whether commercial, charitable, publicly funded, or anything else. Some relevant information is available at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause]]. The article was clearly written from the point of view of someone wishing to publicise the subject, and indicate to us what a good job it was doing, not from a neutral, objective point of view. I am not sure what you mean by "the righfulness of the project". If you mean the fact that the project is good and worthy then I think it is covered by what I have already said. If you mean the truthfulness of the information that was in the article then that is irrelevant, as lack of verifiability was not the reason for deletion. I see that elsewhere you have stated "I am technical manager of the project and entailed by the rest of the Consortium to write the article. It has also been review by the other partners taking part in the project." It is a matter of experience that people involved in a subject in this way frequently cannot stand back and see their editing from the point of view of an outsider, so that they often appear to be sincerely unable to see the promotional nature of their writing. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing of an article by people with a personal connection to its subject. You say "I have follow several examples under European Projects Category and I have made it look exactly the same." I assume you mean that you have tried to make the article similar to other existing articles. If so, this is a very common approach by newcomers to writing for Wikipedia, and an understandable one, but unfortunately it is not always helpful, for at least two reasons. Firstly, there may be differences which make a significant difference, but the significance of which is not seen by someone unused to Wikipedia's standards, particularly to one who because of personal involvement cannot see them objectively. Secondly, using other articles as a model is not always useful for reasons indicated at [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. Finally, I should mention that the administrator who deleted the article gave as a reason "substantial copyright violation of the organisation's website". There are procedures for releasing copoyright material for use by Wikipedia (an unknown editor coming along and posting a message here saying "I am the copyright owner" is not sufficient, for obvious reasons). I could give you links to the relevant instructions, but I doubt that doing so would be helpful, as material from an organisation's website is almost invariably unsuitable for other reasons anyway, such as being promotional in character, as in this case. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 08:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
Is it possible then to write the article again and ask some experienced adminstrator/editor for external review? Is there such a mechanism in Wikipedia? BTW I would also appreciate those links about releasing copyright material |
Is it possible then to write the article again and ask some experienced adminstrator/editor for external review? Is there such a mechanism in Wikipedia? BTW I would also appreciate those links about releasing copyright material. Kind Regards, [[User:RGimenez|RGimenez]] ([[User talk:RGimenez#top|talk]]) 11:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 11:39, 15 November 2010
November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:RGimenez/Prosimos, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: User:RGimenez/Prosimos was moved to Prosimos by RGimenez (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2010-11-10T18:38:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:RGimenez/Prosimos
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on User:RGimenez/Prosimos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of User:RGimenez/Prosimos and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear James,
the article Prosimos is about a R&D Project that has been funded by European Commission.
In order to write it I have follow several examples under European Projects Category and I have made it look exactly the same.
It is not advertising since these projects are public funded and to be of high public interest.
The article also contains a link to the project webpage www.prosimos.eu where the righfulness of the project can be found.
Hoping to understand why the article has been deleted,
RGimenez (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- You say "It is not advertising since these projects are public funded and to be of high public interest". Whether the projects are publicly funded or not makes no difference: Wikipedia's policy is that it does not accept articles that promote anything, whether commercial, charitable, publicly funded, or anything else. Some relevant information is available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The article was clearly written from the point of view of someone wishing to publicise the subject, and indicate to us what a good job it was doing, not from a neutral, objective point of view. I am not sure what you mean by "the righfulness of the project". If you mean the fact that the project is good and worthy then I think it is covered by what I have already said. If you mean the truthfulness of the information that was in the article then that is irrelevant, as lack of verifiability was not the reason for deletion. I see that elsewhere you have stated "I am technical manager of the project and entailed by the rest of the Consortium to write the article. It has also been review by the other partners taking part in the project." It is a matter of experience that people involved in a subject in this way frequently cannot stand back and see their editing from the point of view of an outsider, so that they often appear to be sincerely unable to see the promotional nature of their writing. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing of an article by people with a personal connection to its subject. You say "I have follow several examples under European Projects Category and I have made it look exactly the same." I assume you mean that you have tried to make the article similar to other existing articles. If so, this is a very common approach by newcomers to writing for Wikipedia, and an understandable one, but unfortunately it is not always helpful, for at least two reasons. Firstly, there may be differences which make a significant difference, but the significance of which is not seen by someone unused to Wikipedia's standards, particularly to one who because of personal involvement cannot see them objectively. Secondly, using other articles as a model is not always useful for reasons indicated at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Finally, I should mention that the administrator who deleted the article gave as a reason "substantial copyright violation of the organisation's website". There are procedures for releasing copoyright material for use by Wikipedia (an unknown editor coming along and posting a message here saying "I am the copyright owner" is not sufficient, for obvious reasons). I could give you links to the relevant instructions, but I doubt that doing so would be helpful, as material from an organisation's website is almost invariably unsuitable for other reasons anyway, such as being promotional in character, as in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible then to write the article again and ask some experienced adminstrator/editor for external review? Is there such a mechanism in Wikipedia? BTW I would also appreciate those links about releasing copyright material. Kind Regards, RGimenez (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)