User talk:Oldpulsars

Welcome!

Hello, Oldpulsars, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Qwerty 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Time Computer

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Time Computer, by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Time Computer seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Time Computer, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Time Computer itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Pulsar (watch), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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. Your edits actually look fine except for replacing a ref with what I assume is your own web site. Please do read the COI guideline. Rees11 (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Pulsar (watch) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Beloved Freak 15:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Oldpulsars, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears you may be representing a group / website and using your username for promotion. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Beloved Freak 16:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . . .

This all is a bit confusing, even after I read all the related policies. Oldpulsars has been the name I have used in the watch community since the mid 90's. The name is representative of the world's first digital watch and the only website that historically documents the watches. It does not represent a group or company. I am an established expert on these watches and have spent hundreds of hours researching and documenting facts about the watch and the company who developed/manufactured them. There is no other source in the world for the old Pulsar watches. There is nothing to promote except a source for facts and to preserve the history.

My Self-published material has been reference around the world. I have been interviewed for articles in newspapers, watch magazines and by a renown author of books about watches. I have no references to use other than my own research. My editing is strictly for the Wikipedia visitors to get factual information about these watches, nothing else. I have nothing to promote, advertise or sell.

By removing the oldpulsars.com link, you remove the only source for informational facts for your readers. I respectfully need your consideration to allow the use of the link as it would serve as an asset by sharing the same intent.

Oldpulsars is and has been recognized as the name that represents the watch. The name is respected in the watch community as a valid source of facts. Visitors who would see a revision by Oldpulsars would recognize it as factual.

Oldpulsars

Hello. With regard to your username, my concern was that you are using it to promote your website (even if for non-commercial reasons). I am prepared to accept your assertion that you are not. As for the links, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. It's an encyclopedia, and the intention is to have useful information here, on the website, not just provide links for other websites. People who read Wikipedia are also able to use google to find other websites. Please feel free to use your knowledge to add information to the articles here, with references to reliable sources. It sounds like you know a lot about the subject, which is great. Unfortunately, "self-published material" is not really what we're about here. Please ask if you have any more questions. Regards, --Beloved Freak 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . .

BF, Thanks for understanding and accepting the username. I do want to keep an eye on what is posted on Wikipedia in the subject areas of my expertise. But can you advise me on how I can contribute under the rules without referencing the only known source? Without a source, how can my contributions be defended? I am also confused as to why the two External Links on the Pulsar (watch) page are any more acceptable than an External Link to a website for the "original" Pulsar? When I read this in the Wikipedia policies, I understood this applies.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I am not sure what else I can do to justify the link, but I am open to suggestions. Thanks, Oldpulsars (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With sincere respect, how do I know if you're an expert on the subject? Do you have reliable third-party references that indicate that you're an expert? The two external links that are present on the website look like the official websites for the brand, and it's customary (although not compulsory) to include official websites. To get further opinions about your link, you could ask at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Others may have different opinions from me. I will however repeat that it's better to use sources as cited references to support material added to the article, rather than just sticking a link in the External links section. So, I would recommend adding information, cited to reliable sources, and if you want to gain consensus about using your website as a source, try the Reliable sources noticeboard. One other thought - how did you get all the information on your website? Presumably some of it's from reliable sources at some point? That you could maybe use here? Just a thought... --Beloved Freak 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . .

BF, Fair question. First, somebody needs to visit the website, it speaks for itself. Oldpulsars.com is the Official Pulsar LED website, that's been my point. The website is the only website that represents the watch. Because I personally own the Time Computer trademark, nobody else could do so without my permission (Time Computer was the manufacture). Over a period of 22 years, I have researched a vast number of newspaper article and old magazines for information (many of which I paid for). I have interviewed all the main inventors and spoke with engineers, designers, and executives of the companies involved with the watch. I have collected the watches and purchased official documents from various sources. I also have in my possession, all of the prototypes. John M. Bergey, the CEO of the old company that developed and manufactured the Pulsar, is still alive. Bergey headed the team that developed the watch. You'll find him inside the referenced Smithsonian Institute link. I would be glad to provide Mr. Bergey's contact information, he would confirm my credibility and the validity of the website. I also could supply contact information for the renowned author, Lucien F. Trueb, he has (personally) interviewed me and discussed the Pulsar LED for his book on Digital Watches.

I have nothing to personally gain, my name is nowhere here or on the website. I request no personal credit for my work, it's about the watch, not me. As for putting the tens of thousands of words from my website on Wikipedia, that would be counter productive. As this all started, my intentions are to edit out the non-factual information and in some cases, ad or replace it with factual. With the proper source, like oldpulsars.com, others can help in making Wikipedia factual too, I can't do it alone.Oldpulsars (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not realising the "official" nature of the website. I had visited it, but apart from the title bar (which I'm embarrassed to say I didn't notice), it's not obvious to me that it's an official website. Based on this, I wouldn't remove it again if you re-add the link to the pulsar article, but bear in mind that other editors may be alerted to a potential conflict of interest by the match between your username and website name.

I can see that you genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia, and I appreciate your patience. The resources you mention that you have used in the past sound promising as references you could use to add information to articles. It's probably best that you leave the website as an external link and use these other newspaper articles and magazines as references. It's still problematic for someone to use the results of their own research (even experts!) as references, as this is considered original research and a conflict of interest. The kind of sources we look for are secondary sources, so newspaper or magazine articles would be great.

Thanks for your contributions so far. My concerns have been as a result of many editors who simply want to add links to their own websites in the hope of driving traffic there from Wikipedia. I can see that that is not the case here. Regards, --Beloved Freak 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . .

BF, I appreciate you taking the time to visit the site. I can understand concerns of conflict and someone who just edits to boost (not my style). Please understand it took years to gather information, more like finding all the broken pieces in the sand to piece back together a broken bottle. In some cases, it might take several references for a simple edit. I see no way to reference the many interviews I have done either. I have no problem with just the link but it most likely will be other editors who will reference the oldpulsars site. Again, it's all that is out there other than some articles based on information from the oldpulsars.com website. Writers often contact me, like Mr. Young from the International Watch Magazine, who in February of 2009, wrote an article in which he needed information and a photo, both of which I supplied. He simply credited the website. I hate to think I would have to go through all this again, just by submitting another edit. I would hope the patients of both of us pays off in the instance this comes up again. I hope they will read what we have discussed before removing the link. A kind regards BF,--Oldpulsars (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too. One last thought - if you do run into problems with this again, consider posting at the notice boards I mentioned above (external links & reliable sources) to gain consensus. Regards, --Beloved Freak 21:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]