User talk:DescartesResearch

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello DescartesResearch, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:Self-Aware Computing have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

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. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also 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) 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Self-aware computing (December 3)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Autonomic computing. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is a request to spin off an article. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, unless the draft satisfies a special notability guide. If the draft satisfies a special notability guide, please identify the notability criterion with a reliable source.

This does not mean that the draft should be spun off, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun off. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Autonomic computing. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article and does not satisfy a special notability guide, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.)

There is currently a redirect from Self-aware computing to Autonomic computing. This draft has been repeatedly declined over a period of years. Discuss whether a separate article is needed at Talk:Autonomic computing. If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on a talk page, it may be Rejected, or nominated for deletion.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Self-aware computing and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Self-aware computing, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DescartesResearch! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Hello, DescartesResearch. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add {{requestedit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Ollie,

I refer to your statement above "...the editing community highly values expert contributors... I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly." My intention was to update the content on benchmarking. In fact, I was also planning to write significant amount of new content and add it step-by-step covering developments in the field over the last two decades. I am a scientist (full professor) working in this area for the last 20 years. The current Wikipedia information on benchmarking is way outdated, inconsistent, incomplete, and reading it feels like reading a newspaper from the 1990s while desperately trying to learn about the latest news. I wanted to help to bring it up-to-date and complement it with developments from the last 20 years; however, to be honest, given your comments, I am not sure how I can do this. On the one hand, it is expected that everything should be backed up by references and when quoting something, a proper citation of the source should be included. On the other hand, when I try to add a reference, it is immediately discarded as "self-promotion" or "citation to research published by a small group of researchers". I am not sure how to remedy this, the source I added to the literature is a result of a 5 year joint work at SPEC (the largest non-for-profit computer benchmarking organization and community) in the writing of which more than 40 benchmarking experts from academia and industry were involved - see https://research.spec.org/news/single-view/article/new-textbook-on-systems-benchmarking.html. If you consider this to be an unrealiable source, I am not sure how I can help. The current page references a book from 1993 as a main source for further reading... I appreciate your efforts to avoid Wikipedia becomming a platform for "spamming"; but on the other hand, if you simply block everything as potential spam, I don't see how the content can keep being refined and updated to ensure high quality. With this policy, my comments above about the state of the current Wikipedia content on benchmarking are not a surprise... As I said, I would be more than happy to contribute to revising all content around systems benchmarking if you would accept and respect these arguments as explanation/justification for my latest updates.

DescartesResearch (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DescartesResearch, As an expert you are no doubt familiar with work by a large range of people, including people who have nothing to do with you professionally. Why not cite some of them, instead of your own work? MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie Dear Mr. Ollie, I was citing the latest definition of a "benchmark" taken from the Springer book, which as I explained is endorsed by SPEC, the largest organization on computer benchmarking. I don't have another reference for an up-to-date and widely supported definition, so I used this. Of course, if you would have allowed me to continue working on this page refining the content, I would have cited many works from the community beyond this single reference. In fact, my last article included more than 40 references from other researchers... DescartesResearch (talk) 14:00, 27 Febrary 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie Dear Mr. Ollie, I saw that you have undone my changes from last year to both Autonomic computing and Self-awareness labelling them with "rm apparent COI / self-promotion / refspam". I appreciate your efforts to avoid misusing Wikipedia for self-promotion or spam. Nonetheless, I kindly ask you to consider the following verifiable facts that clearly show why this is not the case: The content you deleted contributed an up-to-date comprehensive survey I wrote for Wikipedia investing several days to summarize the state-of-the-art and literature on "self-aware computing systems", which is a research area that has grown significantly in the last two decades spanning several disciplines and domains. I cited 40 reliable scientific articles with a total of 117 UNIQUE authors published in top journals like IEEE, ACM, Nature Neuroscience, AAAI, IFAC, etc. Most of these authors I don't know personally (although I am familiar with their research); they span several research communities (computer science, engineering, neuroscience, phychology,...) given the interdisciplinary nature of the topic. I followed Wikipedia guidelines and made an effort to provide a comprehensive and also compact summary of the field backed up by peer-reviewed scientific articles that are trusted by the scientific community. So what may have initially appeared as "self-promotion" or "citation to research published by a small group of researchers" is a misunderstanding. The Wikipedia content I mentioned is also linked to from other Wikipedia articles that after the deletion now contain broken links. Also Wikipedia "self-aware computing" forwards to "autonomic computing" which no longer contains anything on the topic. So I kindly ask you to restore my updates. Thanks! DescartesResearch (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That content was largely off topic for the articles that you added it to. A *short* summary (like, a single short paragraph) might be supportable at Autonomic computing, but as a conflicted editor you should work that out on the talk page in advance, and any such draft should likely avoid any self citations. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie Dear Mr. Ollie, Thanks for your reply and sorry to bother you again. I understand that the content (given the depth of the coverage) is a bit off topic, so it should either be shortened or moved out to a separate article. Whatever the next steps, they should be discussed on Talk:Autonomic computing. Since the removal of the content was triggered by you, I would highly appreciate it if you could post the reason ("content largely off topic, should be shortened or moved out") to Talk:Autonomic computing. This would provide a basis for discussion at the talk page and further steps. Also, if you could add a note to the deletion comment (which is currently "rm apparent COI / self-promotion / refspam") that would help. Thanks again for your feedback and for your time. DescartesResearch (talk) 8:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)