RGimenez

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:RGimenez/Prosimos, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: User:RGimenez/Prosimos was moved to Prosimos by RGimenez (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2010-11-10T18:38:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:RGimenez/Prosimos

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on User:RGimenez/Prosimos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of User:RGimenez/Prosimos and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear James, the article Prosimos is about a R&D Project that has been funded by European Commission. In order to write it I have follow several examples under European Projects Category and I have made it look exactly the same. It is not advertising since these projects are public funded and to be of high public interest. The article also contains a link to the project webpage www.prosimos.eu where the righfulness of the project can be found. Hoping to understand why the article has been deleted, RGimenez (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You say "It is not advertising since these projects are public funded and to be of high public interest". Whether the projects are publicly funded or not makes no difference: Wikipedia's policy is that it does not accept articles that promote anything, whether commercial, charitable, publicly funded, or anything else. Some relevant information is available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The article was clearly written from the point of view of someone wishing to publicise the subject, and indicate to us what a good job it was doing, not from a neutral, objective point of view. I am not sure what you mean by "the righfulness of the project". If you mean the fact that the project is good and worthy then I think it is covered by what I have already said. If you mean the truthfulness of the information that was in the article then that is irrelevant, as lack of verifiability was not the reason for deletion. I see that elsewhere you have stated "I am technical manager of the project and entailed by the rest of the Consortium to write the article. It has also been review by the other partners taking part in the project." It is a matter of experience that people involved in a subject in this way frequently cannot stand back and see their editing from the point of view of an outsider, so that they often appear to be sincerely unable to see the promotional nature of their writing. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing of an article by people with a personal connection to its subject. You say "I have follow several examples under European Projects Category and I have made it look exactly the same." I assume you mean that you have tried to make the article similar to other existing articles. If so, this is a very common approach by newcomers to writing for Wikipedia, and an understandable one, but unfortunately it is not always helpful, for at least two reasons. Firstly, there may be differences which make a significant difference, but the significance of which is not seen by someone unused to Wikipedia's standards, particularly to one who because of personal involvement cannot see them objectively. Secondly, using other articles as a model is not always useful for reasons indicated at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Finally, I should mention that the administrator who deleted the article gave as a reason "substantial copyright violation of the organisation's website". There are procedures for releasing copoyright material for use by Wikipedia (an unknown editor coming along and posting a message here saying "I am the copyright owner" is not sufficient, for obvious reasons). I could give you links to the relevant instructions, but I doubt that doing so would be helpful, as material from an organisation's website is almost invariably unsuitable for other reasons anyway, such as being promotional in character, as in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible then to write the article again and ask some experienced adminstrator/editor for external review? Is there such a mechanism in Wikipedia? BTW I would also appreciate those links about releasing copyright material. Kind Regards, RGimenez (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You can create the page again and submit it to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I do not know how useful that would be, but you can try. Before doing so, though, you should think carefully about the conflict of interest and promotion issues.

On the subject of copyright, below I am posting a (slightly edited) copy of some information which would have already been posted to your talk page if copyright infringement had been the original reason why the page was tagged for deletion. I hope it is helpful to you. Incidentally, from a quick glance my impression is that there was some material copied from the web site, but that could have been removed, and I am not sure there was enough to justify deletion of the whole article had there not also been the promotion issue. However, this impression is based on a quick glance.

• If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave on the article's talk page with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words.

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RGimenez, thanks for your message on my talk page. In reply, I can only echo what JamesBWatson has said above. There were two reasons for deletion of the draft article on Prosimos (although unfortunately only one appeared in the log). It was written in quite a promotional tone which does not match our requirement for neutral point-of-view. The reason for this became clear when I examined the article further and realised that it largely copied or very closely paraphrased the documents published by the project itself. This is not permitted at Wikipedia without the permission of the copyright holder, and even then, as my colleague notes above, this material is usually inappropriate for direct use in an article, because it is (understandably) written in a promotional and wholly positive tone.

That is not to say that an article should not be created. If there are reliable sources, independent of the project itself which assert notability, they could be used as the basis for an article. If the project was only recently initiated, these may not exist yet, and it may be better to wait until more information about the project has been published. In any case, it would be better for you and other partners to allow someone independent of the project to create an article.--Kateshortforbob _talk 14:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We have resubmitted the article aiming at addressing and solving the issues that led to its deletion: 1) because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article 2) copyright violation As far as the first objection is concerned, a new version of the text has been submitted deleting some sentences that could have led to a misunderstanding towards a promotional interpretation of the article, they are the following: “Prosimos is a project aimed at a national case study so that the conclusions could be integrated in a broader initiative at EU-level.” “This is of special relevance when these networks become overloaded to the point that emergency workers have trouble getting critical calls through.” As far as the second objection is concerned, a letter requesting confirmation from the PROSIMOS project coordinator to distribute the content of the corresponding website as (CC-BY-SA) has been sent and the procedures described in page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission will be followed.

In date 23rd of March we have received the consent letter and in date 28th of March we have sent to permission-en@wikimedia.org the following mail:

Dear Wikimedia Team,

I am writing to inform you that we have received the permission to publish some content of the website www.prosimos.eu in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RGimenez/Prosimos. We have encountered some problem when publishing the content of this page since, as it can be seen in page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RGimenez, the article has been delated for copyright violation issue.

Hence, following the procedures that are described in page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission, we have sent a letter requesting confirmation from the PROSIMOS project coordinator to distribute the content of the corresponding website as (CC-BY-SA) and the copyright holder sent us the consent letter.

You can find attached the request for confirmation and the consent letter.

March 2011

Hello RGimenez. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Prosimos, 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:

1. editing or creating 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; and
3. 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. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson, I have rewritten the article summarizing the results of the project with positive and negative outcomes, hoping in this way to have addressed the problem of "neutral point of view". I have also added references of third party articles which speak aboutthe project and added information and links of relevant technologies. Moreover, I have made a request for assessment at the Wikiproject European Union, as you can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/Assessment page

The article has been improved in order to increase the importance grade on the WikiProject European Union Importance scale by providing additional information on how the topic is strictly related with European regulatory framework and Directives. Moreover, in order to improve the grade on quality scale, several references to independent reliable sources have been added especially with reference to related technologies and services available worldwide: an extensive overview of SoA technologies and services in order to highlight the relevance that the topic has on worldwide level has been added. Moreover, in order to address the notability issue, as described in Notability Guidelines the following problems have been addressed:

• Significant Coverage: by explaining in detail each topic of the subject (from related technologies to the proposed solution, from business related issues to regulatory framework); each of the sessions includes a lot of detailed information;
• Reliable: by adding a consistent number of independent sources
• Secondary Sources: by referencing public website of organizations or wikipedia articles rather than original technical overviews of the topic described in the sources.
• Independent of the subject: no press release nor self published material is included in the reference list.
• Presumed: I will leave the decision on whether or not this article is suitable for inclusion to wikimedia community. --RGimenez (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Prosimos

The article Prosimos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about the project, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.

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. Crusio (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Prosimos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prosimos 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/Prosimos 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Crusio (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)