User talk:Carlos Joaquin Duarte

Welcome!

Hello, Carlos Joaquin Duarte, 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, such as Production Logging Electron Spin Resonance, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, 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, followed by your question, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Production Logging Electron Spin Resonance

The article Production Logging Electron Spin Resonance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable product; direct copy-paste of source, although I'm unsure of where that goes as far as copyright is concerned.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up on this: while it's not particularly relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it looks like creating an article like this might be against the rules of the contest you've entered. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply on this page, right below these words, if you'd like. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hi

I verified the rules of the contest, I doesn't look there is a problem with the copyright, the contest itself consist in the creation of new concepts and I thought wikipedia would be the best forum for doing it. The concept of "Electron Spin Resonance" is not new and is referenced is also referenced in wikipedia, but the concept "Production Logging Tool Electron Spin Resonance Probe" it is new, that's why I posted it in the contest and wikipedia. For the contest itself you can notice that the number of votes actually doesn't really matter.

The article is incomplete and brief, I'll try to improve it and make changes that makes it relevant for wikipedia. I'm adding the section of rules mentioned in the contest web site in order to be verifiable, you will find them at http://contest.techbriefs.com/faqs#q28 [1]

How do I increase my entry's page views? Some ideas for bringing your page some traffic: Advertise your entry on blogs, social media sites, and bookmarking sites such as “del.icio.us” and “stumbleupon.” Use interesting tags that attract attention, but please make them relevant or the site administrators may adjust these for you. Make sure the first few sentences of your published full entry or summary are interesting and grab the casual site visitor. Include a striking image. Your log files should show evidence of referral traffic to keep to the spirit of this competition, otherwise your entry may be subject to manual page view adjustment by the contest administrators. You may be challenged to provide evidence of public web referrers at any time by the administrators.

What are unacceptable forms of entry promotion? What if I do something you don't find acceptable? Unacceptable forms of self-promotion include posting your entry in public forums where it is not relevant to the discussion topic; using generic visuals that do not make clear that you are linking to a specific contest entry; using the contest logo or other visuals from the contest site for your personal advertisement purposes. Use of bots and repeated reloading over extended periods of time is also unacceptable. Forms of advertisement that lead to email complaints about entry promotion being “off-topic” in forums/groups/mailing lists/sites will be investigated by the site administrators. Contestants who use these methods may have their entries hidden from public view on the site.

Regards Carlos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.216.139 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in terms of inappropriate promotion of your idea; it could be construed as posting in a public form where it is not relevant to the discussion topic. That's really to one side, though; the main issue is that your submission doesn't yet meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. The subjects of Wikipedia articles must be notable, and given that your idea doesn't seem to have any coverage in reliable sources that I can find, it's just not notable enough yet for Wikipedia. This could change in the future, of course, but we have to let it take its course; we can't jump the gun. If a subject is only notable because we have an article about it, it was never really notable to begin with.

The reason for the notability requirement is this. In Wikipedia, we require all our information to be verifiable by references to multiple, independent, reliable sources. Verifiability in this manner is the only way we can be at all confident about the material we have. Subjects that aren't notable just don't have enough coverage for us to write anything verifiably about them, and without anything to write, we don't really have an article.

Now, this kind of mistake happens all the time, so don't worry about it! You won't get in trouble or anything. Wikipedia is a tricky place sometimes, and it takes some time to get the hang of it, but it can be a pretty fun place.

(Oh, and by the way, it's best if you make sure you're logged in when you post things to talk pages, so that you don't reveal your IP address, and so that people can recognize who said what.) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Writ

Yes sure, I'm working on it. There is a lot of references about the subject,I'm trying to select the best fit for Wikipedia. Is hard to find actual books about the issue but there is lot of scientific papers on-line, and yes, the main issue is to verify they are independent, accessible and with reliable content. Although actually, first thing I have to do is to learn how to edit the article in wikipedia.

...Oh! yes... I'm logged in already.

Regards Carlos

Okay, that's fine, but here's the catch: remember that, as an encyclopedia, we don't use original research. We need reliable sources not just about the problem this product is addressing, but the product itself. If you take, say, a reliable source that says "X is a problem", and a reliable source that says "method Y could be used to address X", and then combine those sources to say "this product, since it uses Y, addresses X", what you've done is called synthesis, which is a more subtle, but still just as problematic, form of original research. What you need is a single reliable, independent, third-party source that directly, unambiguously says "this product uses Y to address X". You see what I mean? It's not enough, for either notability or verifiability, to have reliable sources that cover the problem or even general solutions to the problem; you need reliable sources that cover this product as a solution to the problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've got it now, I'll re-structure it in the way you mentioned, still I have the doubt the "single reliable, independent, third-party source that directly, unambiguously says... " can be a reference from internet? can be a commercial advertising? or a similar concept or product? That may be complicated because the idea of bringing the article to Wikipedia (and the reason I posted it to the contest) was because although I researched for very similar concepts, some of them well known techniques within that industry, I noticed the whole concept was actually new. In any case I'll enrich the article the most possible with all those ideas and I'll mention the sources.

thanks carlos

It could possibly be from an Internet source, but advertising would not be a reliable source. What I've found is that notability can't be forced; it's either there or it's not. If there's not significant coverage (that is, at least a full paragraph discussing the product) in multiple reliable sources, than a subject is almost definitely not notable. Like I said, since the article is about a specific product, sources that just cover the general issues or solutions are not enough to demonstrate notability; you need sources that discuss the product itself. The simple answer to Wikipedia, the universe, and everything is 42 here, and if your article doesn't meet that, it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Keep in mind, also, that although this product may not be notable now, it can become notable in the future. If your entry wins the contest, say, and a few major news outlets or scientific magazines run some articles on the product (written by their own reporters/editorial staff, so that it meets the "independent" criterion), that might indeed be enough to establish the subject's notability, and then we can have an article about it without problems. But we have to wait until that happens; we cannot jump the gun on notability or assume that it will happen, we must make sure it's already there.

Finally, even if you do establish notability, I would strongly recommend that you rewrite the article to avoid even the appearance of copyright infringement. I don't doubt that you are indeed the author of the contest entry, and so I don't doubt that you do own the copyright to the text you copied. (If I wasn't reasonably confident about that, I would've flagged your article for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement.) But Wikipedia is very strict about copyright infringement, as it's one of the fewthings that it can get into legal trouble for. It's not enough that you give us permission to use the text, you must release it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, which is what Wikipedia itself is licensed under. So, you should give some really serious thought to rewriting the article, instead of just using the copied text. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I notice that you removed the PROD tag. That's perfectly fine; you're well within your rights to do so. I'm fine with giving you some time to work on the article. But you should know that there are other deletion processes (specifically, a listing at articles for deletion), so, to use the old saying, "you're not out of the woods yet." There's no rush; even if I started the AfD process right now, it still runs for seven days until the process ends and the article could be deleted, during which you would be free to continue working on the article and also to weigh in on the deletion discussion that would take place before a decision is made. So, just keep that in mind. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Ok, but well, no I didn't delete it, at least not intentionally, but yes I have been editing the article since few minutes ago... yes I'll keep in contact to check the article complies with the rules of Wikipedia, in any case, meanwhile, it will look little messy , but only while i'm gathering the references and information and trying to put it all in some order.

thanks

Actually, I tell ya what. It's probably a better solution if we move this article into your userspace. It won't be a "real" article while it's there, but that way you'll ahve all the time you need to work on it, and you won't have to worry about it getting deleted. Once it's ready, we can always move it back. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done this. You can now find the article at User:Carlos Joaquin Duarte/Production Logging Electron Spin Resonance. Like I said, this way you're free to work on it as much as you like with no pressure or threat of deletion. When it's ready, we can move it back. How's that sound? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sounds ok, I'll keep updating it for a while. While is in here, is still able to be modified for some other users?

Yes, anyone who wants to modify it can. But it won't show up in searches (that's basically what "not a 'real' article" means), so there probably won't be many other people that stumble across it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]