Paulmckevitt

Paulmckevitt, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Paulmckevitt! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Mc Kevitt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Paul Mc Kevitt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GamerPro64 04:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Mc Kevitt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Mc Kevitt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Mc Kevitt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul Mc Kevitt

Are you Professor Paul Mc Kevitt, -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)?

Hi Paul. You are going about it the wrong way. If your BLP remains after the AfD process - you know which way I voted - it'll need significant pruning which will not be easy. Your behaviour at the moment, ignoring all the wikipedia policies, breaking basic rules, isn't going to help your case. Believe it or not I believe that many of those you currently see as against you would be very willing to cooperate with you to bring the article, if it is decided that it is an appropriate article for wikipedia according to our policies, up to the mark. Carry on, and I see no hope for it.

That's just my 2p. You will do as you will of course. Good luck. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Roxy: any help you can offer very welcome; I'm completely new to Wikipedia and need as much guidance as possible; I'm happy to prune; if I am breaking any rules it is completely out of ignorance, rather than intention; I don't see anyone against me --I am just trying to make reasoned arguments for the case of notable-academic and would welcome help in getting the article into the correct format --any help appreciated, thanks, Paul Paulmckevitt (talk)

I think you would benefit by taking a look at the welcome page and stopping by at the Teahouse. Aditionally, please put 4 tildes at the end of your messages to sign them. Like this: --~~~~. --TL22 (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul, like all of us here, I am a volunteer, and I make only very minor contributions to the encyclopedia. My experience here at wikipedia, is the only difference between us. May I respectfully suggest you take a little breather while the Article for Deletion process is going on. Your recent contribution there is going to make little difference to the process, and I believe it may, and only may, go better for you if you withdraw all the stuff you re-added a little while ago. As a mark of my own WP:AGF good faith I will withdraw my vote while we discuss here. Hang on. (Note that I have tidied up the conversation we are having) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try to explain the way I see things. I'm also pretty bad with nuanced meaning, so it'll take me a while - I prefer the sledgehammer approach. Answer me this though, are you here just to sort out your own article, or do you have an interest in contributing in other areas of the project. Remember that there is nothing wrong with the former but we have some pretty stringent policies about people writing their own biography WP:BLP themselves. WP:COI. TL22 has also posted very useful links for you above. back later. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Roxy: I am completely inexperienced with wikipedia and need to read more as you say; I think a breather

may be good; much appreciated on your vote --I need to read-up about how the voting process works too; it's all new to me and all I was trying to do was respond to the comments on the AfD page, providing reasoned arguments in response to the non-notable academic points. Paulmckevitt (talk)

TL22:

Yes, I need to take a look at the welcome page and stop by the Teahouse; ok, will use 4 tildes thanks Paulmckevitt (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Roxy:

Yes, I wish to sort out my own article and also have an interest in contributing in other areas; I noticed for example when working on my article that they were no articles for a number of topics in my academic field and I would be interesting in contributing same and in other ways. I have tried to follow WP:BLP WP:COI by giving as many RS References as possible and links to Google Scholar etc.; I was also trying to put the following responses to the Delete comments on the AfD page (but maybe I should not have done that) ??

Paulmckevitt (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Notable-academic: Secondary sources are included in the list of references such as the University homepage: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/staff/p.mckevitt.html http://academy.bcs.org/content/distinguished-dissertations-2013 (British Computer Society) (BCS) and recent newspaper article (Irish Times) http://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/blis-where-imagination-meets-engineering-1.2340485 and University Convocation Executive: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/secretary/secretariat/convocation/convocationmembers.html; more are included under "Interviews" More are being added --c.f. a simple Google search on "Paul Mc Kevitt"

Notable-academic: A reference link to Google scholar http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=U5bPoGgAAAAJ&hl=en (independent source by Google) has been added showing a list of ~200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books with associated citations: Google Scholar Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11

Notable-academic: More references are being added to ALL sections; the Research work of a Full Professor with his/her Ph.D. students is very relevant (NOT extraneous), particularly in the field of Computer Science; and if you care to look at/study other notable biographies (particularly in Computer Science) you will see that they ALL include research work with former Ph.D. students; the article clearly demonstrates wp:academics on a number of fronts; how could one possibly be Editor-in-Chief of a key academic journal in the field (Artificial Intelligence Review, Springer) for 12 years (1996-2008) and publish 7 peer-reviewed books with key academic publishers (John Benjamins; Springer) and over 200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books and organise the key British (10th Anniversary AISB-1995) and Irish (AICS-97) conferences and 2 workshops at the main USA conference (AAAI-94) and the key international contest (23rd International Loebner Prize Contest, 2013) together with international invited keynote lectures in the field and international education & appointments (Ireland, USA, England, Denmark, France) otherwise ! ; link to LinkedIn page and social network pages are allowed if referring to the subject; --the creators have studied wp:rs and know that a LinkedIn page and the subject's own academic peer-reviewed writings are RS when backed-up with many other RS citations, patents, newspaper articles, press releases; the vast majority of the 39 Reference citations given in the article conform to wp:rs; how does it read like a CV any more than others' biographies ? --over 200 peer-reviewed academic publications and 3 peer-reviewed patents with RS citations is clearly NOT marginal nor is Google scholar: Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11; now, let's make it more obvious: as for significant awards/illustrious positions you don't seem to have read/studied the page:

---

Whilst at University of Sheffield, Mc Kevitt was awarded one of two 5-year UK EPSRC Advanced Fellowships in Information Technology (1994), the other being awarded at University of Edinburgh, Scotland. The focus of the fellowship was research on integration of natural language, speech and vision processing.

---

--this is a significant award !

---

New Mexico Centennial Researcher Award (1988)

---

--this is also an award ! Also, this too:

---

He was awarded (with Dr. Abbas Cheddad, Dr. Kevin Curran & Dr. Joan Condell) the Northern Ireland Science Park (NISP) 25K Awards, Hi-Tech category award (2009) for Steganoflage (SDW digital watermarking), [24] a demo of which can be seen here: Steganoflage

---

Paulmckevitt (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulmckevitt, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

TL22 (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Tired and Emotional tonight.

I've tidied the page a little. The equals signs you use mess with the page formatting so I've replaced them with a bar thing.

Get into the habit of using colons on talk pages to indent so conversation flow is easier to follow. I must confess that this formatting sometimes confuses me, but look at talk pages and see how colons are used. make new comments at the end. Talk pages are where the discussions take place, obviously. Have you seen the edit summary box yet?

I've got to be honest and say that I just don't know how the RfC will go. I can assure you that there are no hidden agenda, it'll just be a decision based on wiki policy. I don't know WP:BLP well, but you have to consider what may happen. On the other hand, if the article stays, people will want to wikify it, and you have to prepare for that. I doubt it would end up as you have envisaged, but that's for later.

As I am tired and emotional, I'm not going to comment further tonight, but be assured I'll be back. When I got here (by which I mean wikipedia) I had no idea at all what was going on. wanted you to know. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 00:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Roxy: thanks for all your help; I will look at talk pages and see how : are used; must take a look at the edit summary box...I did not think there was a hidden agenda; I am happy to edit the article, and will take all the advice I can get, if it stays; I have no problem if it does not end up as originally envisaged. Yes, I am in the position you were when you arrived at wikipedia; it is like a minefield to step through.

I had assumed that one could respond to delete comments on the AfD voting page but it seems not; is it not a bit unfair that people can propose reasons for deleting a page (which may influence others) and there is no way to respond/rebut what they say ?

Paulmckevitt (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tidied up the page a bit again. I think you may be using a device which is putting some formatting into your posts, but I'm no expert.

I wanted to explain about what has happened today, just in case. Your vote, to which you are perfectly entitled it seems, has been put back there. This is good. But I want to be straightforward and suggest that you replace your post at AfD with a simple statement along the lines of a brief apology for unwitting mistakes, and the hope that you are found to be notable. The info there is already in the BLP, and people will see it, as well as doing whatever we do to resolve it. (I'm not going to vote). I also think you should stop editing the article for now. I feel a bit brutal, and desperately want any stalkers (editors who read this) to either say "butt out Rox" or grudgingly agree with my suggestions. Remember this is just a total stranger on the internet offering free advice!! Please feel free to ask any Qs. Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 22:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings professor. I came across the AfD while perusing some of the admin noticeboards. I made a comment at the AfD which may give you some clues as to why your article is there. Please bear foremost in mind that there is no malice in the review of your article for deletion. Should you wish to respond to editors who have voted, please keep it brief and most importantly of all do not give the impression of badgering the voters. Voters will, and should, all seek to make policy and guideline based arguments for and against the deletion of an article. A closing administrator will judge the consensus based on the strength of the arguments and either close as delete, keep or merge if there is an appropriate target article.

I would highly recommend that you have a thorough read of several Wikipedia guidelines, namely WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V, WP:RS. This will give you a better idea as to why I, and potentially others, vote the way we do. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A passing note

I have moved the contended article to your user page, as I generally do for autobiographies. I have closed the deletion debate before it becomes too obnoxious. The deletion debate should not index on Google, in case you're worried. I note that all the contributions to articles using this account, reference you. I am sure you will stop doing that now, but in case you were wondering it is considered a very bad idea and can attract strongly negative commentary that might end up affecting your online reputation - please see WP:COI for some guidance. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks Guy ! :) --I hope I was not obnoxious, i.e. I was just trying to make reasoned arguments based on wp:academic guidelines and listed criteria for Notability; I'm new to Wikipedia so please forgive any infelicities Paulmckevitt (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not the first and won't be the last. Nobody died :-) Guy (Help!) 20:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a complete minefield; I only just now realised that it is not just advised, it is basically forbidden to add any stuff related in any way to one's own work subject ! :) and autobiographies are out ! (although I have noticed on checking quite a few bios have been entered and edited by their own subjects) --I'm glad I didn't die ! :) Paulmckevitt (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You can write about your field of study, as long as you cite sources (but if you want to cite yourself, you need to suggest the edit on Talk instead of making it direct). If you *keep* citing yourself, you'll be seen as self-promoting, and actually I don't think that's your goal here. I am sue there is a lot of good information you can add that is directly related to your studies, and actually probably the most valuable thing you could do would be to encourage your students to review and improve Wikipedia articles on relevant topics. Some lecturers have been known to give editing tasks as assignments, have a look at Wikipedia:Education program. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

ok, I see; yes, I noticed when doing my own bio that there were subjects missing like "Control-Value Theory", etc.; I will encourage my Ph.D. students to add content and even give editing tasks as assignments ! thanks Guy, this helps, Paul Paulmckevitt (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. Wikipedia is a great project, but the rules have become Byzantine since I joined over a decade ago. The Education team linked above will be able to offer you good advice specific to your needs, I think. Happy editing, Guy (Help!) 06:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks Guy; that explains why I found quite a few bios have been entered and edited by their own subjects --many of them were added a while back before things became Byzantine; things must have tightened up since before...:) Paulmckevitt (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)