Jump to content

User talk:Blaesem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2016

[edit]

It seems to me that Draft:DREAM Challenges in its current form is far too promotional to be acceptable as an article. You need to substantially rewrite it so that it reads as a neutral account, rather than as an attempt to give the reader a favourable impression of "DREAM Challenges".

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Doing so almost always infringes copyright. Whenever you post anything to Wikipedia you declare that you are releasing what you post for free re-use by anyone anywhere in the world, unchanged or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owners of a web site are actually willing to do that, and on the rare occasions when they are, we need proof that they are: we can't just take the word for it of anyone who chooses to create a Wikipedia account and post here. In this particular case, where the page in question bears the copyright notice © 2016 Dream Challenges. All Rights Reserved, we certainly can't accept the content.
  2. It is possible for the owners of copyright to provide Wikipedia with evidence that they actually do license the content for free re-us in accordance with Wikipedia's licensing terms, but it is rarely worth the trouble of doing so, because an organisation's own web site almost always presents an account of itself which is designed to give a favourable impression, i.e. a promotional account, rather than an account from a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia policy. In my experience, even when the owners of a web site do respond to deletion of content from Wikipedia by releasing copyright under a free license, very often the content is simply deleted again as being too promotional for Wikipedia.
Because of the copyright problem, the page Draft:DREAM Challenges has been deleted. I strongly recommend following the advice to new editors which I gave above, to avoid putting more time and effort into work which will just be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DREAM 72dpi RGB.jpg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:DREAM 72dpi RGB.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

___________

I am the Web Master for the DREAM Challenges (please see http:dreamchallenges.org/sitecredits and own the images and content for the website, I wrote the content on the site, and paid for the logo DREAM 72dpi RGB.jpg and it can be used anywhere, I have full rights to this file. The copyright on the DREAM pages is part of the wordpress template. I am not sure how to address your concerns. We want to use our logo on our organizations wiki page. This was uploaded from the original files provided to me by the graphic artist. [User:Blaesem|Blaesem]] &nbspBlaesem (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Elise[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Blaesem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Draft:DREAM Challenges, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blaesem. I posted the above just for your reference. Although Wikipedia does not explicitly prohibit COI editing, it is something that is highly discouraged by the community. So, I suggest you take a look some of the links I added above and familiarize yourself with what kinds are expected from COI editors. Generally, COI editors are given a little bit of leeway when it comes to working on drafts of articles because it is believed that anything not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines which been cleaned up by others if the draft is eventually approved as an article, but please be advised that even though you are the one creating the draft you do not have any ownership over it and it technically may be edited by anyone at anytime. In most cases, an experienced editor will only do so when it's necessary to fix a major policy or guideline problem. Regardless of your COI, I strongly suggest that you submit your draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation for approval. An AfC reviewer will look at the draft and assess it accordingly.
In addition to the links listed above, it might also be a good idea to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly I do not believe I have a conflict of Interest for these reasons - the DREAM Challenges do not pay me, i,e., I am not an employee of the DREAM Challenges; nor do the DREAM Challenges pay my company for services; nor this article is not about me personally. My time donated to the DREAM Challenges for the purposes of maintaining their web site, etc. I don't believe that a donation of ones time or money to an organization, justifies a COI. The definition of COI from the COI page is that it involves contributing to Wikipedia about "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". As I am employee of another company; DREAM is not a client of my company; therefore I do not have a financial interest in the DREAM Challenges. Blaesem (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining a company website does seem to imply that a conflict of interest exists. You don't necessarily have to be a employee of the company or be financially compensated by them for a COI to exist. A volunteer donating his or her time to a charity would also probably be considered to have a apparent COI if they were editing a Wikipedia article about said charity. As I posted above, Wikipedia only highly discourages COI editing, but it does not expressly prohibit it. If you want further clarification on this you can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard if you like or you can ask for the opinions of others at the Wikiepdia Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK was just trying to get a draft started so we can invite others who know about the topic to edit. They are not affiliated with DREAM. DREAM is an open science crowdsourcing project, so sort of used to the idea of having community involvement. The idea was for me to start the draft to get it going and ask some topic experts to come and work on editing and adding. Sorry I caused so many issues for your processBlaesem (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Expert editors. Basically, an article can be edited by anyone in the world at anytime; therefore, nobody really has any right of final editorial control over article content. The idea is that articles will be improved over time through consensus and collaborative editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia's MOS. Good-faith mistakes are expected per WP:IMPERFECT and the normal course of action is to fix articles that can be fixed and get rid articles which can't. Of course, it's a little more involved than that, but that's the gist of things.
The problem with your draft is not really that you have a COI, but rather the copyrighted content which has been repeatedly been re-added (not just by you) and that it is not clear how the subject satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Subjects of articles are generally required to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to be considered Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article: primary sources and trivial coverage may be acceptable for verifying certain article content, but they are not really considered acceptable for establishing Wikipedia notability. So, if your purpose is to create an article perhaps to promote DREAM's activities, etc. where either you or DREAM has some final say over the article's content, then that is not really what Wikipedia is all about and you may find yourself being accused of being more here for DREAMS than Wikipedia. On the other hand, if your purpose is the create an article about DREAMS because you believe it satisfies relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines and that you can write such an article in a neutral manner not based upon your own original research, then please continue to work on your draft. When you think it's ready to upgraded to an article, please submit it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. You can do this by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft's page. An AfC reviewer will then assess the article to determine whether it is acceptable to add to the article namespace. There tends to be only so many reviewers and a bit of a backlog, but eventually someone will get around to reviewing the draft. For reference, reviewers typically leave comments/suggestions for drafts which have been declined and it's not uncommon for a draft to be declined multiple times before being accepted. The basic premise behind AfC is to try and weed out articles about topics of questionable Wikipedia notability which are likely to be quickly nominated for deletion if they were added directly to the article namespace by their creators. AfC is optional, but is typically recommended for article created by COI editors. There's no 100% guarantee that any article created via AfC will never be deleted from Wikipedia, but those that are do seem to have a better chance of surviving.
Finally, I have noticed that two other accounts have also worked on the draft. Do you have any connection to either IP 156.40.255.16 or user Jeriscience? There's nothing wrong with multiple editors working on the same article or draft. Jeriscience, in particular, is a single-purpose account like yourself, and some editors might view two SPAs working exclusively on the same thing, particularly if it's for a draft of a not very well-known topic, as being possibly connected to one another. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are major problems when it comes to Wikipedia, so experienced editors are always on the watch for anything which might be seen as such. Please understand that I am not accusing you of either, but am just providing this information to you for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC) 　[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I am not |156.40.255.16 or Jeriscience, as I said we are a community science effort and have let our community know we are doing this, to contribute to the page. We have 100's of scientists involved from around the world. As you had issues with people be directly involved I specifically contacted 2 people that are not involved but knowledgable yesterday to ask them if they could provide some input to the initial draft, I do not believe they have done any editing yet.

I am truly sorry that in my first attempt at making a page I copied material from the website and pasted it into the the draft with the intent of having our community edit on it. This was a big error. I apologize. But please can we look beyond it, it was a month ago because the page now, does not read like that initial page at all.

At this point I do not believe we have any "copyrighted" material on the page, other than the logo, which I would like to understand how other corporations and organizations have their copyrighted logos on their pages. The other "copyright" issue that may be encountered, is the "Name of Challenges". Again which I don't think this should be a copyright issue, they aren't technically copyrighted, and future users/editors may try to list the names of the challenges. I noticed another editor had added a challenge list and it was deleted for "copyright violation". These are formal names, and though they are listed on the DREAM Challenges website. I wouldn't think that a formal name of something could be unusable other places just because it appears on our website. they are used in news articles, on Synapse and in the scientific publications. How do people who write the pages about TV shows reference the names of TV episodes without violating some sort of copyright? We at the DREAM Challenges are happy to give permission to allow the Challenge names to be used on Wikipedia as the copyright that gets put on our site is just part of the our wordpress template for the website..

Regarding the tone. I have made every attempt to make this neutral and a good starting point for other editors. It is a simple explanation. I am hoping scientists will add more info. I sourced it with news pieces and articles that are easily accessible to readers, versus the journal articles in Nature that require paid access. However, as you feel the reference list is trivial there are various Nature pieces that I have added as sources as well if this makes what I have written more real for you and the other approvers. These citations with the exception of the DREAM website which is referenced for things like number of current challenges, and types of publications, should meet your "notability" standards as they are from peer reviewed journals or independent journalists or scientific journal-blogs. If these are not appropriate a greater understanding what is needed, as we are a scientific crowdsourcing project, and our sources will be coming from this sort of thing.

I have modeled this page after the CASP page that is referenced on our page. If you can explain to me how our page in its current form (which is not finished), not the initial december version (which was problematic), is more marketing that what is on the CASP page, it would be helpful.

Please know I do understand that anyone can provide input into these pages at anytime. I do get it, and look forward to it. We are not trying to maintain editorial control of this page and am looking forward to handing this off to the community. That is what DREAM is, we crowdsource things. Maintaining control really is not the point.

The point was to get a start for the DREAM Challenges on wikipedia as no one had done it and the project has been around since 2006 and we have over 100 scientific publications and about 20 of those are in Nature so we aren't a trivial effort. Your results don't get a Nature publication if what you are doing is trivial. There are entries for both Kaggle and Innocentive, which are commercial challenge organizations doing what we do why would we be considered ineligible.

I do apologize again for copying material from our website to try to jump start the writing of this page back in December, and causing you such headaches.

Lastly, if you have some valid wordsmithing or additions it would be very much welcomed. As a comment to your interface, in the draft stage it would be nice if there were a comment/redline function within the page so someone could comment directly on a problem within the page, rather than just deleting, so people working on creating the draft could understand the concerns rather than this back and forth on these talk pages. What is the purpose of a draft if you can't use it as a place to work out this issues before publicationsBlaesem (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your post was quite detailed and covered several different topics, so I'll try to touch on some of the things you mentioned. In general, it's a good idea to try and remember that all editors are volunteers who may be editing for a variety of different reasons. Although many editors do try to help out others having problems, long posts covering multiple topics are sometimes passed over as "too long, didn't read". So, sometimes you may get better responses by more concise shorter posts. I tend to write wordy posts as well, but such a thing does turn some editors off.
  • As stated above, the primary notability guidelines for organizations, etc. are found at WP:ORG. Basically, it needs to be established that the organization has received some significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage does not necessarily mean that entire books, etc. need to be written about the subject, but it also does not mean simple mentions of an organization by name in some book, newspaper article, or business directory, etc. For example. if you wanted to write an article about a band, then an in-depth article about the band in Rolling Stone or a major newspaper which is more than simply a concert listing or a "New releases" mention would likely be viewed as significant coverage. On the other hand, a blog post or social media posting, etc. might be likely be seen as user-generated content and perhaps not even a reliable source. Physical existence is not enough to establish for Wikipedia notability, but all long as you can demonstrate that significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources does exist per WP:NEXIST. The sources need to be published and accessible by someone, but they do not need to be online. If you have a questions about the reliability/suitability of a specific source, then a good place to ask would be a WP:RSN. You may also be able to get some more specific feedback from any WikiProjects whose scope the draft might fall under.
  • A "call to arms" to the members of your community needs to done with care. Anyone can edited Wikipedia, but if their primary purpose is to edit on behalf of the organization then they may find themselves having problems with others per WP:COI. Wikipedia articles are really only supposed to reflect what reliable sources have written/said about a subject, and all the information found in articles is essentially required to be verified by citations to these sources. Wikipedia is not, in general, really too interested in hearing what subjects have to say about themselves or what others editing on behalf of the subject have to say about it. Sometimes when a group of well-meaning people not familiar with how Wikipedia works starting editing an article in response to something they saw online, the article, etc. can start to move in a direction which is not really in keeping with WP:5P. These people may be editing in good faith, but if they start to create some serious problems (even unintentionally), the response from some parts of the Wikipedia community can sometimes be a little harsh.
  • Although it can be a good idea to use other Wikipedia articles (especially FAs and GAs) as models when working on a draft, it's also important to under stand the concept of "other stuff exists". Wikipedia has over 5,000,000 articles, some of which are not really very good and have lots of issues. This is why I suggested above that you submit the draft via WP:AFC. There's no guarantee that it will be accepted, but AfC reviewers tend to provide suggestions on things they feel drafts are lacking, etc. when they decline them. If you want to see some examples of this, take a look at Category:Declined AfC submissions. There is, of course, nothing stopping you from moving the draft to the article namespace yourself, but, as I pointed out above, this is something COI editors are typically advised not to do and in many cases leads to a quick nomination for deletion if the subject's Wikipedia notability is questionable. Many articles are deleted each day, but there are also many problem articles which continue to fly under the radar. If you want to see some examples of articles about organizations whose deletion is currently being discussed, take a look at Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product).
  • Adding large tracts of copyrighted content to Wikipedia articles is something that is problematic and should only be done in accordance with WP:COPY. Even if you yourself are the copyright holder, it's best not to automatically assume that is good enough for Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Articles are supposed to be written in our own words and summarize the information we find in reliable sources. It's OK to use small bits and pieces of copyrighted content in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but anything too closely paraphrased or copied-and-pasted is usually going red-flagged as a WP:COPYVIO. If you have questions about the copyright of an image file, the place to ask is at WP:MCQ. If you have questions about the copyright of text, the place to ask is at WP:CP.
Well, I hope I got to most of your questions. Just for reference, I am not an "approver" per se and have only been trying to provide some general advice. If you want to specifically discuss the draft with a "AfC reviewer" or a "New pages patroller", then you can probably find one at WP:AFCHD or WP:NPP/N. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on your draft

[edit]

Hi Blaesem. For some reason, I still have Draft:DREAM Challenges on my watchlist so I figured I point out a few things I noticed about it.

  1. The "References" section should come before the "External links" section per WP:ORDER.
  2. Trying to increase a draft's chance of being accepted by simply increasing the number of citations is not always a good idea as explained in WP:BOMBARD. When it comes to notability of an organization, it's the quality of the citations that matters, not the number of citations. Anything which is a primary source, user-generated source or a trivial mention is not going to help establish notability. The mistake new editors sometimes make is trying to add too much information and questionable sourcing to an article because the feel that more just has to be better. That's not really the case, and sometimes it's actually better to strip the article down to the basics when trying to establish notability.
  3. Do not embedded external links in the article per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, WP:ELLIST and WP:EL#cite_note-7. Doing so is not in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on using external links and may be considered a form of spamming. Consider converting the links to inline citations if that's their purpose or using an internal link instead. If there is no way to add an internal link for something or to convert into a proper inline citation, then simply don't embed a link to some external website.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question- This wasn't a blatant attempt to increase a citation count. How are you supposed to reference something when you are building a table like I am where the data is coming from 50 sources across the years. The source for the information are the external links in question. The table that is being generated is of the number of challenges per year and the number of teams participating. The number of teams participating comes by counting them off the leaderboards from the pages cited. So it isn't so much a bombardment as creating content for the site and referencing source material. Each challenge listed has it's own leaderboard that needs to be referenced and there are 40+ challenges it creates a lot links as citations but they are on the bottom and associated with the table. The text part of the article have "significant publications". I have removed the external links to the challenge pages, didn't know that was an issue. Blaesem (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blaesem. The intent of my last post was just meant to provide some information about things I noticed, not to accuse you of doing anything wrong. I have seen drafts with lots of detail citing lots of sources being rejected, but drafts with only one or two paragraphs and a few solid sources being approved. AfC reviewers like every editor are volunteers and a reviewer may be looking at quite a number of drafts each day. There are currently 435 pending submissions according to WP:AFC, so there tends to be a bit of a back log. So, sometimes it may be hard for them to find those "significant publications" in a draft with so many other sources, especially lots of primary sources. It's also important to try and remember that the "cake" of an article is supposed to primarily reflect the significant coverage found in reliable source, independent of the subject. Some drafts do contain a pretty good cake, but it's hidden under lots of "frosting" supported by citations to primary sources: information which maybe true, but may not be worth mentioning for encyclopedic reasons as explained in WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
Have you thought about asking for feedback/assistance from a WikiProject? There are many WikiProject and maybe there are one or more projects who cover this kind of article. A WikiProject can be a good place because the editors in them tend to be a little more experienced with certain types of articles and how they should be written according to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and manual of style. You also might be able to find a specific AfC reviewer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants who is willing to offer some friendly suggestions on what (if anything) needs to further improve the draft and there's also Wikipedia:Requested articles where you might be able to find another editor who is willing to adopt what you got and help see it through to article status. Just some suggestions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Open science and Talk:Crowdsourcing might be able to help with the draft. WikiProject have talk pages, and you can post on them just like you would with any other talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DREAM 72dpi RGB.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DREAM 72dpi RGB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaesem&oldid=774839115"