User talk:Cern open source
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
[edit]
|
Hi Cern open source! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
October 2013
[edit]
Hello, Cern open source. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Drm310 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why can't I edit Wikipedia?
Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
- Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?
Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
- What can I do now?
If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
- Add the text
{{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}on your user talk page. - Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
- Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Daniel Case,
I understand you blocked user Cern_open_source (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cern_open_source ).
Me and the Invenio team at CERN are thankful for that. We discovered only few weeks ago the changes Cern_open_source had done in October 2013 on the Invenio page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invenio ).
Please note the following:
- there is no "Cern_open_source" unit, service or any other body called like that at CERN - after a short investigation I found that the "Cern_open_source" account was created and used by people from http://tind.io/ (as clearly hinted by changes done in october 2013 to the Invenio page) - TIND is a spin off company from both https://www.ntnu.no/ and CERN. As such, CERN and TIND collaborate, but TIND is *completely indipendent* from CERN - there was no authorisation for TIND to create and use an account in the name of CERN or trying to pretend that somebody at CERN was behind that account - in the last days we have been discussing with TIND and they understand they should not have used such a name, not only because it abuses Wikipedia rules, but also because they were not entitled to represent CERN in any ways - we are confident that what happened was mainly due to inexperience and unthoughtfulness and it will not happen again, after we clarified the issue with TIND.
I am available with pleasure to discuss the issue and/or to provide evidences about the notes above, including to prove my identity, if needed.
Based on the notes above, we ask:
- to revert the Invenio page to the version before the changes of october 2013, except
* the Stable Release version number and date, which I updated on 25th feb. 2014 and it is correct as it is today * the External link about TIND (the last one), which we do not see reasons to suppress.
- to suppress the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cern_open_source , which publicly associates CERN with abuses which were not done by CERN
We do not ask to unblock the account "Cern_open_source".
We understand that reverting the content of the Invenio page to the version before october 2013 is both in the interest of Invenio and of Wikipedia (since the text introduced in october 2013 does not always comply with Wikipedia policy). Of course I am available to do the changes myself, if you wish so.
Following the same principle, that is, in the interest both of Invenio and Wikipedia, in particular in order to provide a correct and useful information to Wikipedia readers, we would like to adress the issues that are cited at the top of the Invenio page and dating back to November 2012. Please advice on the best way to do it.
Indeed we think the issues should be raised based on the considerations below:
- notability guidelines: it is true that Invenio was originally developed by CERN. Today, though, (and since 2007) it is co-developed by an international collaboration comprising institutes such as CERN, DESY, EPFL, FNAL, SLAC (see the Website in the box in the Invenio page, or the readme file in the various versions). Actually there is no article on the "international collaboration", so the notability guidelines are met and the issue should be raised. Of course there are articles about CERN and DESY, EPFL, etc. But also for DSpace ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSpace ) there are articles for MIT and HP Labs and even, more importantly, for Duraspace. If it is not agreed and there are still doubts that the Invenio page does not meet the notability guidelines, please explain us on which grounds and possibly hints to meet them.
- references to primary sources: we understand that this issue does not take into consideration the first of the External links. This link points to a list of a couple of dozens websites, indipendent from the "international collaboration" co-developing Invenio, which we believe should be considered as secondary sources. Could you please let us know if this is enough to raise this issue? If it is not the case, would it help to include references to an indipendent survey such as http://www.toscaconsultants.fr/logiciel.htm, which was reported also in the specialised press, see: http://www.toscaconsultants.fr/articles/logiciels_pour_bibliotheques_2014.pdf and http://www.toscaconsultants.fr/articles/bibliotheques_rebond_du_marche_des_logiciels.pdf ? There are also other indipendent sources that we could provide. If they should be listed as "External links", I will be happy to add them.
- Self-published sources: to us this issue should be raised based on the same grounds as the previous issue: the first of the External links lists several non "Self-published" sources. The mentioned survey is also a non "Self-published" source and we may provide other ones, if needed.
We would be gratefull to know how to help you in providing to Wikipedia readers an information about Invenio which is not earmarked as doubtfull and reflects correctly the dozens installations (around 50 documented) all over the world that trust Invenio to store a total of more than 5 million records of multimedia digital assets.
Finally, the note 1 to the Invenio page unfortunately contains a link which does not point to the intended information. We suggest the link to be replaced by
https://raw.github.com/inveniosoftware/invenio/v0.90.0/RELEASE-NOTES
Could you please confirm that there is no problem if I do this and similar updates directly, which are intended only to provide a more correct and useful information to the readers of Wikipedia and do not change the text of the article?
I am available with pleasure to discuss these issues regarding the article about Invenio and possibly future ones.
Thank you and regards Flavio Fcosta23 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)