Stockwellnow

November 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Open Source Lab has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Open Source Lab was changed by Stockwellnow (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.953337 on 2013-11-04T01:43:06+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Open Source Lab (OSU)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Open Source Lab (OSU), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://osuosl.org/about.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Open Source Lab

Hello. It is possible to rename a page together with history and talk page, which is better than moving the text. --AVRS (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the new page for deletion, but I think it's too early to give the disambiguation page the shorter name if all the links are going to be red. Wikipedia:Disambiguation shows some options. --AVRS (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved the page to OSU Open Source Lab (that name is used in a couple of places at http://osuosl.org, and has no parentheses), leaving a redirect. If you don't create any articles on the other labs, or if the first one is most notable, you can create your disambiguation page at Open Source Lab (disambiguation) and add {{other uses}} or {{redirect}} at the top of OSU Open Source Lab. --AVRS (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Stockwellnow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Open Source laboratory information management systems

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 Open Source laboratory information management systems, 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I contested the speedy deletion in the talk page -- please see my argument there- please improve rather than delete. - thanks --Stockwellnow (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open-Source Lab (book)

The article Open-Source Lab (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book. 32 Google hits, most are sales/download locations, none are reliable sources.

While all constructive 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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Largoplaza - I contested this deletion as well - see Talk:Open-Source_Lab_(book)#Contested_deletion. Some of the links are peer reviewed and one is a relatively large news site on 3D printing. If I add those in may I remove the delete tag?-- Thanks Stockwellnow (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of UniParthenope Open Source Lab

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 UniParthenope Open Source Lab requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Retartist (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing articles and what to link to

Hey, I thought I'd give a little more detail on why I've removed some things. Ultimately it boils down to coverage in reliable sources. A concept can be notable, yet individual features such as books, specific companies/labs, and such won't pass notability guidelines to merit their own article. What this means is that even though the topic might be notable and something might be associated with someone that's notable (in the case of the book, the author Pearce), that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by that association. We absolutely, positively must have coverage that is not only in-depth, but is in a source that's independent of the topic and reliable by Wikipedia's standards. I didn't see that for the book.

I also removed several of the links on the disambiguation page for OSL. The rule of thumb is that in order to merit a mention on a list or disambiguation page on Wikipedia, the lab must have received enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. Given that the average scientific laboratory doesn't burn up the presses like some of the other stuff out there, this can often be very difficult to find and most labs won't pass notability guidelines. It's frustrating, but we're not here to make up for the lack of coverage. You can suggest guideline changes, but it's very unlikely that the rules will change on this. The most we can sometimes do is if we have a proper full article for something we can link to the websites for some of the most notable labs out there, but the general rule of thumb for external links is the less the better. Linking to every lab can often turn into linkspam even if it's unintentional. That's the basic reason why we don't link to websites on disambiguation pages or lists unless the subject/lab/company/person is notable enough to pass notability guidelines.

Now what I'd suggest is that you work on one article about OSL. This looks like it might be difficult, since this could be seen by many to be a POV fork of Open-source movement. The key is to find sources that talk specifically about the labs as opposed to the movement itself. The movement has been around for a few decades, but you will probably still run into problems with this due to the limited amount of coverage. A way that you can sometimes get around things like this is to create subsections in the main articles if there's enough coverage. The thing to be careful of is that you aren't too liberal with how you interpret the RS, as sometimes people can take more from a source than was originally intended and it can become original research. Another alternative is to work on articles in your own userspace. An example would be say, creating an article for the book at User:Stockwellnow/Open-Source Lab (book). You can work on articles at your leisure in your userspace without fear of someone saying "this doesn't pass notability guidelines". It's also a good way to get used to editing and such, if you're a newer editor. I've created a version of the book's article in your userspace for you to work on and source.

I hope that the book gets more coverage, but the reality is that most academic texts don't gain a lot of coverage. It's fairly rare when you get down to it and in many instances I've had to redirect articles to their author. If all else fails then you can create a subsection in Pearce's article that discusses his work with OS projects/labs at more leisure, although a section for the book itself is probably not a great idea unless we get more coverage. It can sometimes put undue weight on the one book as opposed to Pearce's overall work with OS stuff. Most times we just list a bibliography section as opposed to any lengthy or semi-lengthy mentions of individual books. Hope this helps! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Moved another article into your userspace at User:Stockwellnow/UniParthenope Open Source Lab so you can work on sourcing it with RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. How do I see what is in my userspace? --Stockwellnow (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just click on the links in the messages I posted (User:Stockwellnow/Open-Source Lab (book), User:Stockwellnow/UniParthenope Open Source Lab) and it'll take you there. Let me know if anyone deletes any of your other stuff and I'll move those into your userspace as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open Source laboratory information management systems

The article Open Source laboratory information management systems has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article only barely escapse WP:CSD#A3 but still, makes no credible claim of significance, has no source and has nothing beyond what title says plus two external links.

While all constructive 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. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A reply to all current threads on this page is on my user page

--Stockwellnow (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I understand your frustration but the problem is that we still have to establish notability for a subject. When you come down to it, Wikipedia is about documenting notable subjects that have received enough coverage to pass our notability guidelines. We're not a hub for collecting all forms of information and data about a subject. We're not meant to be that sort of resource. This came about mostly because for a very long time in Wikipedia's history we had people using the articles as a place to spam for whatever website, company, product, or what-have-you that they wanted to write about. Please don't assume that I'm saying that you have that intent- I think that you are 300% here for non-spam, non-advertising purposes and that any promotional tones comes from your personal love for the subject and inexperience with writing in the NPOV tone Wikipedia likes. We all started off like that and while I wish that the learning curve here wasn't so steep, I can't change that by current standards an article can be deleted in minutes if tagged properly with speedy deletion tags.

Going back to why we can't have links or list things without an article, the reason is that back around '09 or so Wikipedia began to realize that the amount of data they were getting was unwieldy and that a lot of people were exploiting the system. This meant that the site had to start making stricter rules for notability. This was great for say, ensuring that someone couldn't just create a page on their own self-published work or the start-up company that they created last Wednesday, but it has a lot of drawbacks because it means that a lot of pages end up getting deleted for a lack of coverage in reliable sources. This pretty much means things such as the OSL book. Personally I'd love to be able to keep books that are by authors that are themselves notable and I really wish that we could justify doing that. Part of my biggest joy is creating new articles on things I like, but I'd say that I can only create maybe 1 out of every 10 pages that I initially start researching. Unfortunately it all boils down to the rules becoming so strict because of past abuse of the guidelines. Do I like how things are now? No. But is it necessary? Unfortunately yes. There's always an argument to add, eliminate, or otherwise amend rules in order to keep the obviously non-notable stuff off Wikipedia while trying to ensure that we can keep the things that might fall somewhat short of notability guidelines. It's just that we've had enough people try to game the system that any new rule literally has to go through a huge process to check out all of the loopholes and ensure that it is worth the effort to pass and enforce. It's pretty hard, but if you're interested in trying to suggest a way to amend the rules to allow for more things that have what I personally refer to as "common sense" notability (things that are pretty notable or popular but never gain actual coverage in RS) to get and retain articles, then I'd back you up on that.

As far as other editors helping... that's sort of one of the worst parts of Wikipedia. It'd be nice if other editors could clean up articles and help establish notability, but not everyone tries to do that. Sometimes it's because the editor is literally swamped with work to do both on and off Wikipedia. The only answer is that while it'd be nice if others could help out more, they're not obligated to. The whole reason I got involved with Wikipedia is that I noticed errors and omissions and eventually realized that nobody else was going to do the work. I've had a pretty steep learning curve and I'll be honest when I say that very few people actively tried to explain policy , help out, or explain why they deleted or reverted my edits. You can always ask the other editors for help and appeal to them to actively try to improve the page rather than just tell you that everything is wrong, but that's not always a guarantee that they'll help. The only thing to remember is that harshness and edits from other editors on an article isn't always done just to be unhelpful or ensure that an article is deleted. Sometimes it's because something simply doesn't pass policy in some fashion or another, such as when I removed the hotlinks on the disambiguation page.

As far as tags go, notability tags at the top of an article don't always mean that an article will be deleted. It just means that there are issues at the top of the page that need to be addressed. In many cases it doesn't mean that the other editor that tagged the article thinks that the topic is truly non-notable, just that the notability needs to be backed up. Don't take it terribly personally- there are articles where something is relatively established, yet they still have tags at the top for various issues such as sourcing, neutrality, and the like. That doesn't mean that it's going to be automatically deleted. The only ones you need to worry about are the ones for speedy deletions, formal deletion discussions, and prodded articles. In almost every circumstance you can argue for the article's inclusion over a long period of time (a week for AfD and PRODs) and continue to work on it until the very last minute.

I know that all of this is a little TL;DNR, but I wanted to really go over some of the points with you. I don't want you to think that we're doing this out of spite or any true spirit of unhelpfulness. The steep learning curve and strictness of notability guidelines really is a sticking point for a lot of new editors and the reason why a lot leave. I wish that we could be a bit more lenient, but other than turning a bit of a blind eye for a while until another editor formally nominates the page for deletion, there's not much we can honestly do when it comes to page deletions or information removal. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Tokyogirl79. I really appreciate the explanations and helpfulness - you are really cool. I think for now I am not going to try to start any more pages or work on the lab stuff until I am a little more experienced and only work on other people's work. It is a tricky problem. I understand not wanting to be over run by spam - but I think it is clear now Wikipedia can never be the one-stop shop for all information - that it will just be a slightly broader Britannica - with more odd biases (e.g. anything that is popular will be covered in spades, while knowledge of real value is going to leak through the cracks). So for example Dial-out PCR does't even exist outside of a brief mention in the PCR article yet we have a great article on Eminem, which has a 242 citation page dedicated to him. No offense to Eminem but in the grand scheme of things there is no question about which is going to be more useful for humanity.

You said "We're not a hub for collecting all forms of information and data about a subject" - I guess I thought Wikipedia was and I would like it to be. Why not? To rectify things I would be tempted to let everything in - but ensure that it is NPV. So if someone starts a company and wants a page that says company x does y - even if they are a start up and just set it up yesterday -- I think let them. As that is still neutral real knowledge that might be valuable to someone. If they start saying company x does the best y or other unsubstantiated stuff - slam it with the Old Testament like smiting of Wikipedia's most vicious editors. As long as it all can be curated properly and company x isn't placed on equal footing to say BP because they own a gas station convenience store -- I think we are ok. To have the number of people to handle the initial deluge - we would need to be super welcoming to new editors.

Thanks again - Stockwellnow (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• You've pretty much hit the nail on the head with the odd biases and I have to say that you've pretty much summed up all of the frustrations of Wikipedia in a nutshell pretty aptly. I hope you'll continue to edit and won't let this get you down too much. I'm just sorry that you had to go through all of this in your first few months of editing. I was fortunate enough that I didn't get the full realization of all of this until about 1-2 years ago. I'd known about the issues and limitations of Wikipedia but I never really fully realized this until an AfD for Diane Hoh came up, an author that was a pretty big staple of 80s/90s teen horror novels that never got a huge amount of mainstream coverage that survived the big shift to the internet. A bunch of us managed to save the article, but it kind of impressed on me how much Wikipedia is limited. In any case, you can always create stuff in your userspace and continue to work on it until you get enough coverage ([WP:USERFY]]). The way to do this is to go to the search bar and type in something like User:Stockwellnow/Name of Article and work on the article there. It's far more lenient as far as the userspace goes, since it's not in the main website, so it's a good way to work on articles until they pass notability guidelines. I have a few that I've been curating myself for a few years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Stanford Open Source Lab for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stanford Open Source Lab 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/Stanford Open Source Lab 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. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of BYU Open Source Lab

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 BYU Open Source Lab requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Blueclaw (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)