User talk:JCalzado/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Oscar6522! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 18:34, Friday, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-building-squared.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-building-squared-tagged-2.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-building-wiki-2.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oscar-building-squared-tagged.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-all-june-2014.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oscar-building-wiki-ready-aerial-2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Any photos of the building that you upload here must be:

• free of watermarking
• available under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} or compatible licence
• uploaded to the Commons
• used in a Commons gallery rather than cluttering up an any article.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-wiki-lab-photo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-wiki-main-photo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-wiki-main-photo-2.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-sign.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-wiki-main-photo-4.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-wiki-main-floor.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-building-construction.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar-building-construction.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OSCAR building at Delaware State University.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oscar Building on Delaware University 2.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OSCAR Center appliedoptics lab 09.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OSCAR building at Delaware State University - front.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OSCAR students in building at Delaware State University.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OSCAR building sign at Delaware State University - front.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OSCAR-center-logo-ready-copy.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OSCAR Building at Delaware State University - Aerial.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oscar Building at Delaware State University - Rear.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Your name suggests a corporate account which is not allowed and your edits indicate clearly that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but merely to promote one building. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JCalzado (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

JCalzado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I recognize that it appears that my name indicates that I will solely be updating the OSCAR building page but that can not be further from the truth. Although I am affiliated with OSCAR, I am deeply rooted within the science community and have plans to update other articles in the science fields, in particularly those of nano-physics (ie: optics & photonics) and astro-physics articles such as Stingray Nebula and more. I chose that username to identify my affiliation in the science world, however I realize that was a mistake. This account will be updating much more than OSCAR and will surely be an asset to the scientific community of Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

The username was one part of the reason for this block; the proposed new username would resolve that. The other part was the promotional tone of your edits, something you have not addressed. If even in retrospect you cannot see how "OSCAR is the focal point for the convergence of science, engineering, and economic development." and the like are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, you should not edit Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JCalzado (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for that explanation. However, the article was in my sandbox and still a work in progress. You mention that I have not addressed the "promotional tone of my edits". However, that sentence you mention was not brought to my attention as being in violation, and secondly, it is factual. Looking over it, I can see how it may sound exclusive and can change "the focal point" to "a focal point" but the fact that the center converges science, engineering, and economic development is accurate. I tried elaborating, and can elaborate further if necessary, or if it absolutely is in violation, then I can remove it entirely, but I certainly have credible references that will be properly cited upon completion of the article. I'm completely open for discussion regarding anything edits made, and I am willing to make whatever changes necessary to remain in compliance of Wikipedia. (Oscar6522 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

Decline reason:

The wording that Huon quoted was merely an illustrative example: the whole page is full of such language, designed to impress us with how good "OSCAR" is. If, even when it has been drawn to your attention, you still can't see that the page reads like a promotional brochure rather than a dispassionate neutral account, then it is very unlikely that you will be able to edit in the neutral way needed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock-spamun | 1=Thank you for that expanded explanation Mr. Watson. It's not that I can't see, but rather I can not make any changes to the article and it was in my Sandbox, not live or published. The article is not complete and this constructive criticism is both welcomed and received. I see the tone and would love to work towards ensuring my articles read as neutral as possible, however, due to my account being disabled, I am unable to work on said tone and fix the issue at hand. (Oscar6522 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More out of control legalism from Stefan2

If you have any comment to make, I'd be happy to copy them over, under WP:EVADE.

I'm sorry for how your experience of Wikipedia has gone so far, that you've had this ridiculous block and also that I didn't personally have time to try and avert it earlier. This is pretty much the opposite of how this sort of situation should have been resolved. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Andy. I am truly trying my best. (Oscar6522 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

Unfortunately the ANI thread was closed immediately on the basis of "let's all be nice to each other". Which only seems to extend to admins and the clique though. Sorry. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Noureddine-melikechi-dphil.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

JCalzado (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for that explanation. However, the article was in my sandbox and still a work in progress. You mention that I have not addressed the "promotional tone of my edits". However, that sentence you mention was not brought to my attention as being in violation, and secondly, it is factual. Looking over it, I can see how it may sound exclusive and can change "the focal point" to "a focal point" but the fact that the center converges science, engineering, and economic development is accurate. I tried elaborating, and can elaborate further if necessary, or if it absolutely is in violation, then I can remove it entirely, but I certainly have credible references that will be properly cited upon completion of the article. I'm completely open for discussion regarding anything edits made, and I am willing to make whatever changes necessary to remain in compliance of Wikipedia. (Oscar6522 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

Accept reason:

Hi Oscar6522, I saw the mention of your block at WP:ANI. I'm unblocking based on the following 3 conditions:

• You'll head over to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and change your username when you log back on;
• You'll stop uploading images for a while, until you understand Wikipedia's policies; it looks like almost all of them aren't appropriately licensed, and many (most?) of them aren't really fixable. This can be discussed, of course, if the rules are unclear, but until then no more image uploads, OK?
• Please read and understand our conflict of interest policy: WP:COI. It appears at least some of it applies to you. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to stop editing about OSCAR, but you definitely need to understand the increased scrutiny you're going to get, and how you need to approach this.

Feel free to ask here if you have any questions. I may not be around a lot, so either be patient for a reply, or go to the WP:Teahouse for a quicker response.

I understand this block probably felt heavy-handed, but please understand we have to deal with a lot of spam here, and sometimes we use tools that are too big for the job. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi JCalzado, now that you have been unblocked, I would like to take a minute of your time to deal with conflict of interest matters in Wikipedia. (I work on COI issues in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing) There are two steps to managing COI in Wikipedia - disclosure and a form of peer review.

One thing at a time - disclosure first. Above you noted that you are "affiliated" with Oscar. You don't have to identify yourself (your identity is protected by the WP:OUTING policy) but we do ask editors to disclose the nature of their COI. You could be faculty or staff there, you could be a contractor hired to create an article about the center.... there are many ways you could be affiliated. Would you please explain? You can do there here, just below this comment. Once you reply, I can work with you to make a more formal disclosure, and then I can tell you how the peer review piece works. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response. I had trouble logging in (did not know username was case sensitive at login). Anyway, all is well. Yes, I am an employee at OSCAR. We produce information for various journals within the scientific community based on our research. Hopefully we can add to the Wikipedia community and also increase the accuracy of many articles as accurately and as neutral as possible. Thank you for your reply and assistance in sorting out formal COI disclosures. Your guidance is dearly appreciated. JCalzado (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to know you are well. Thanks for making the disclosure. So you have a COI for OSCAR and people related to it, as we define COI in Wikipedia.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:JCalzado - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work for OSCAR and have a conflict of interest with regard to it" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about OSCAR (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I added a tag to the draft article's talk page and to Talk:Noureddine Melikechi, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is

• a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
• b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:Noureddine Melikechi - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks!

Oh - also, the draft article in your sandbox really should be in what we call 'draft' space and set up for the AfC process, so that when it is ready you can submit it for review. May I move it draft space and enter it into the AfC queue? That will add a button to it so that you just have to click that, to tell reviewers it is ready to go. Just let me know. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

WOW what an awesome resource you have become. I can not thank you enough for taking the time to explain everything and which such clarity. It all makes perfect sense. Moving forward, I do agree to follow the peer review process per our discussion.

I have added the disclosure piece to JCalzado talk page.

Thank you kindly for the link on Melikechi talk page.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could move the article to 'draft.' My only request would be if you could point me in the right direction on how to move to 'draft' and set up AfC process that would most helpful and appreciated.

I would definitely love to hear more about which kind of proposals are OK under content policies. Also, I would like to know about proper image tagging. I can't seem to properly tag photos that I have taken and have complete ownership of as the ImageTaggingBot is not content with any of my edits (the images have since been auto-deleted).

Lastly, on the Melikechi talk page there was an external link modification request. After reviewing, it appears as though the editor wishes to change my original link:

"http://news.delaware.gov/2011/11/18/governor-markell-names-ambassador-to-mars/"

to "http://web.archive.org/web/20160303184558/http://news.delaware.gov/2011/11/18/governor-markell-names-ambassador-to-mars/"

Upon visiting the proposed link, it appears to be an exact duplicate with a "floating toolbar" overlayed atop the page. Is archive.org affiliated with Wikipedia in any capacity and is this practice commonplace? Just seems fishy to me. I have pasted actual request below:

"Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Noureddine Melikechi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

   Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303184558/http://news.delaware.gov/2011/11/18/governor-markell-names-ambassador-to-mars/ to http://news.delaware.gov/2011/11/18/governor-markell-names-ambassador-to-mars/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.).

Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)"

Again, thank you so very much for your support, patience, and guidance. JCalzado (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thank you for being so gracious.

The cyberbot is fine - it does things as unlike other bots it tells you about it on the talk page. (there are various "bots" that people run that do various kinds of maintenance chores, like fixing dashes (some people are really anal about N-dashes and some other kind.. I don't understand it but there is a bot that changes dashes) and that do things like move punctuation before references, or format citations better, etc. This one goes into the internet archive to see if there is a link saved there, so that we don't get WP:LINKROT. Helpful.

I will move your draft into draft space and slide it into the AfC queue. Next time you want to create an article, just go to WP:AFC there is a big blue button there and if you click that and go through the various pages you will end up at an article in draft space with all the necessaries already in place.

I will post the "how wikipedia works" thing that explains content policies etc in a bit, after I move the article.... Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

OK it is moved to Draft:Optical Science Center for Applied Research and it now has the AfC box. When you are ready, just click the blue button in that box and it will tell reviewers to come check it out. You have a ways to go! Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, this will get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)

People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).

There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

• WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. You will also find discussion of how WP is not a catalog, not a how-to manual, not a vehicle for promotion, etc)
• WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
• WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
• WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
• WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would generally give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. Of course if that drug was important because it killed a lot of people, not having 90% of it be about the side effects would not be neutral) We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
• WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically covering discussion about living people anywhere in WP. We are very careful about such content (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
• WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.
• WP:DELETION discusses how we get rid of articles that fail notability.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are

• WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
• WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
• WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
• WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
• WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it out on the article Talk page. Don't WP:EDITWAR. If you cannot work it out locally, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
• WP:COI and WP:PAID which I discussed way above already. This is about preserving the integrity of WP. A closely related issue is WP:ADVOCACY; COI is just a subset of advocacy.
• WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or say Talk:Noureddine Melikechi. At article talk pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the relevant place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff - like this whole post.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

If you want to create an article, here is what to do.

1. look for independent sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources.
2. Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there. (you need three or four, at least - if all you have are WP:SPS it is not going to fly)
3. Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
4. Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography) (For example, for companies, the relevant project is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines)
5. Create the article following the process described at articles for creation for your first few articles.
6. Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide an inline citation for each sentence as you go.
7. Make sure you write in neutral language. The most rigorous way to do this is to use no adjectives at your first go-round and add them back only as needed.
8. When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
9. Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article. If you have a COI for the article, note it there.
10. The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
11. Submit your article for review by clicking the "submit your draft" button that was set up when you created the article. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that

Again that was a lot, but the goal is to get you somewhat oriented. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page is getting really long, so I set you up with an "archiving bot". Anything older than 21 days will get swept off this page and put in an archive page, which should keep this page a reasonable length. If you don't want it, just revert this edit of mine. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You claim the image you uploaded here is your own work but it is all over the internet, for example here. Please fix the data at the upload page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My photo is all over the internet because I have provided it to organizations within the optics and science communities through various channels. I will admit I am having trouble citing photos I take because I can't seem to give the photos the proper data that will not result in removal of my photos but if you can suggest what I am doing wrong, I am more than open to learn and follow correct protocol. However, I did in fact take this photo and all others I plan to add to the Commons. Thanks "JCalzado (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)"

Hello, JCalzado. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JCalzado. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Optical Science Center for Applied Research".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)