User talk:Nabeth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] AtGentive Project

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of AtGentive Project, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.atgentive.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of AtGentive Project

A tag has been placed on AtGentive Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —— Ryan • t | c 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of AtGentive Project

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as AtGentive Project, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice my comments on the article talk page. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Yours is a perfectly reasonable question. The problem is that by and large, we discourage the addition of external links to articles. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a search engine; if you want additional links about a topic, you would use the search engine of your choice. Under our guidelines for external links, the "boring" official page is the one permitted link that is allowed even if the official page is biased and promotional as all get-out. Further external links, especially to unfiltered venues such as blogs and the like, are strongly discouraged. One of the more boring tasks of editors doing clean-up on articles is the removal of what we disparage as "linkfarms" unless they are reliable sources of valuable, verifiable additional information. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest is a major problem here

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article AtGentive Project, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Answer: I will stop now updating about this project. However what I have written can certainely not be considered as an article about yourself, althought I acknowledge I have been largely involved in it, but something in which 8 different organisations have been involved. As I indicated however, I will stop adding myself further information (and expecting that others will add information if neccessary). Nabeth (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia and academe

The problem is that Wikipedia is not only not welcoming to, but actively rejects, original research and synthesis. We have deliberately self-limited this particular project to a role as an accumulator and compiler: a secondary, tertiary or even quaternary source. Thus, we are not going to be a good place for contributions on the true cutting edge of any kind of advancement of knowledge. Once this new knowledge is assimilate into the broader memesphere (if I may coin a neologism), then an article may be crafted, citing proper peer-reviewed reliable sources. I hope this somewhat addresses your concerns. (Sorry to give you such short shrift, but I'm off to a major literary conference in about 57 minutes. Yahoo! It's WisCon weekend!) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer that I will elaborate soon related to the NoE FIDIS. The objective of a NoE is not to conduce original research and synthesis, but rather to facilitate the networking of a group of expert. It includes both inventories of the state of the situation (and not research) in a domain (something that could typically flows in an encyclopedia), and well as some prospective work and vision (something that is indeed outside the scope of an encyclodepia). Therefore the idea of the FIDIS in Wikipedia initiative, if it goes throught, is to have the FIDIS to contribute to a better conceptualisation of the concept of Identity (and I am not mean by this research results). Thierry Nabeth (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)