User talk:Dnauser

Welcome!

Hello, Dnauser, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Full Genomes Corporation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dnauser (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Welcome![reply]

Hello, Dnauser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like K1a1b1a, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JCutter (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of K1a1b1a

A tag has been placed on K1a1b1a requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JCutter (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Full Genomes Corporation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped editing this page. I emailed wikipedia support and got some clarifications.(as of Nov 27, 2017) Dnauser (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Full Genomes Corporation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Full Genomes Corporation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Genomes Corporation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I notified the team of my COI.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. One other thing you need to do is read WP:PAID and put the required template on your userpage. If you aren't sure how to do that you can ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

As for your article, read WP:ORG. For sources, read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Thanks. A lot of people misunderstand what Wikipedia is and see it a bit like Facebook, where anybody and any organisation can have a page. Our concept of WP:NOTABILITY often comes as a surprise, just as the fact that you can't add your own knowledge or experience surprises others, especially academics. If there are other similarly sourced articles that doesn't affect the discussion but they probably shouldn't exist and someone might find time to look at them. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we completed a number of advanced research projects including some specialized work in forensics and Y chromosome phylogeny. This isn't in the category of Facebook, but work for a nationally recognized laboratory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

indenting and signing

Hi Dnauser. Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I am not very familiar with the conventions here. Note also that the point I have been trying to make is that the evaluation of notability depends on familiarity with the industry as well as the significance of this type of DNA testing. Otherwise, one assumes that certain news sources are not significant. However, I do admit that we may be too small a niche for consideration. However, in that instance, wikipedia will only reference one of the two players,leaving the other entirely unmentioned (i.e. ourselves). In that case, for instance, the DNA testing companies listed will only be the large ones, that large amounts of TV advertising etc. That is a judgement that is reserved of course to the wikipedia community, but in my view, due consideration should be given to giving space to small companies, with less press, such as ourselves. Dnauser (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a learning curve here! You nailed the indenting and signing thing, congrats! Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Dnauser. Thanks very much for disclosing your relationship with Full Genomes Corporation and for disclosing on your userpage and at the article talk page.

I want to make sure you understand the "ground rules" here - first things first!

There are two pieces to COI management in Wikipedia (which we abbreviate as "WP" all the time... lots of acronyms here). The first step is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In WP, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest (as is evidenced by the string of warnings above this). If conflicted editors edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But -- understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! (As a CEO I am sure you are acutely aware of this) There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the FGC article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Note that I declared the COI once I learned how to do it by emailing the wikipedia team. Secondarily, I stopped editing the page once I read the COI policy carefully. Note that as I mentioned, I think it is open for discussion as to whether the ISOGG wiki notability criteria establish notability for Wikipedia.Dnauser (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe you are starting to try to engage with this strange place and how it works. I do hope you take the time to read and absorb the stuff in User:Jytdog/How.

I have to go do real world stuff now so will be offline til tonight. As you have seen at the AfD we are waiting for additional consent before we can decide next steps.

With regard to ISOGG in my view that is not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED.

(you forgot to sign your comment btw) Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that wikipedia participants can disagree on whether a source is reliable or not. I think there's a good case as to why ISOGG is reliable, based on the qualifications of its editors. I can agree to disagree on that point. Thank you for your assistance and feedback. Best.Dnauser (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this on the talk page of the now-draft article but just to be sure you see it, i have opened discussion about whether the ISOGG wiki is a) a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED and b) whether it can "count" toward notability as "an independent source with substantial discussion of the organization" (per WP:NCORP). The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ISOGG_wiki. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. One point that occurred to me was that the total market for our industry thus far has been 30,000 people. So, about 1 in 10,000 people in the US have taken this type of advanced genetic test. That's why ISOGG is more detailed as a source, and probably why most people haven't heard of whole genome testing for consumers or advanced Y chromosome sequencing. It's a specialized area. Likewise, ISOGG, while the primary wiki of record for genetic genealogy, is also specialized.Dnauser (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article

Is now at Draft:Full Genomes Corporation (with its talk page). Thanks for agreeing to this. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doug! Dnauser, please be aware that it is OK for you to directly work on the draft article and to click the blue button to submit it. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]