User talk:Conman98

Welcome!

Hello, Conman98, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Restore Burn and Wound Research, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

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

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Quantpole (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Restore Burn and Wound Research[edit]

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

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Quantpole (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, for what it's worth, that article will still get deleted. If you own the copyright to the material, and wish to licence it freely to anyone who wants it, for any purpose you need to read the terms of the GNU Free Document Licence, and send an email to our volunteers via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so that we can ensure no copyright violations take place. You should also be aware that given the tone of the article you wrote, it's likely to be mercilessly edited to make the tone and format more encyclopaedic, less promotional. Wikipedia is a third party that provides information, and pages about companies don't represent those companies. Cheers, Wily D 13:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is my first page so apologies for any errors etc! I am happy for it to be edited mercilessly but thought it was fairly encyclopaedic and not too promotional as it says what we do...
- No problem. A first leap into Wikipedia is rarely easy. In general, editors are very wary of those who may be authoring articles. If you're keen to try to write an article, what you really ought to do is collect articles & the like written and published by third parties (newspapers, magazines, whatnot). In general, your own website probably already says "What you do", Wikipedia's trying to collect and summarise what others have said about who you are, what you've done, et cetera. Wily D 16:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Restore Burn and Wound Research, 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:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
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. GregJackP (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont see a conflict of interest. I hope that the infoprmation provided is clear and factual and more importantly verifiable by consulting our website or other sources such as the Publications listed Conman98 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the conflict of interest standards. On the talk page of the Restore Burn and Wound Research article, you stated that you were the Vice Chairman and a Trustee of the organization. That meets the conflict of interest standards under several different areas. It is hard for someone with a COI to always present a neutral point of view, and for that reason, it is discouraged. (GregJackP (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have reviewed the COI standards and am of the opinion that a neutral editor would have no issues with what is provided regarding the charity which, I trust, is clear and factual. I understand that it is discouraged but we are trying to ensure that the work the charity is doing in this field is widely disseminated in the scientific community.Apologies for choice of user name! Conman98 (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

status and advice[edit]

As reviewing administrator, I simply rewrote the article--so there is really no need for you to concern yourself with the copyright permission. The material there would not have been suitable in any case. It may may be clear and factual, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. A list of the various staff is unnecessary detail--I left in the scientific directors and the presider, which is sufficient. A list of members of the board and the like serves only the promotional purposes of giving them recognition and advertising the significance of the group, and is never acceptable content here. Nor is a description of the important overall subject--plastic surgery and the other topics treated in those sections have articles of their own.

There are two major remaining problems. One is that we need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases) to show the importance of the organisation. As you probably have them at hand, add them.

The other is that the list of publications given does not show much notability: 3 peer reviewed papers in 18 years? Surely there have been more than that. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. List the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly, getting citation figures from Web of Science or Scopus--any major academic librarian can help with this. . Presentations and PHD theses do not count here. Include major national level awards, but not such things as mere fellowships.

Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. Avoid WP:Peacock terms. and you need to understand that our purpose is not " to ensure that the work the charity is doing in this field is widely disseminated in the scientific community". That's , actually, an excellent statement of what we do not include. It's exactly what we mean by "promotional". Our purpose is rather to provide information about people and things that are already important and recognized and widely disseminated; that's why people use an encyclopedia.

What would help is articles on McGrouther, Roberts, and Thyler, who are probably notable physicians. It would be worthwhile and informative to write them. Give the basic information--the source should be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees, previous positions. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. List the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly, getting citation figures from Web of Science. Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio.

If I can help you with any of this, let me know on my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and apologies for my naivety but this is my first article.... I will endeavour to produce the references you require. The three scientists are indeed notable persons but I do not have their CVs to hand. Prof McGrouther is no doubt listed on the Univ of Manchester's site as is Mike Tyler on Stoke Mwho heads the unit at Stoke I am sure that a lot more publications have been produced in the last 18 years but the ones I listed were from the charity's latest Annual Report - can that be cited as a source? I did include a link to the charity's site which provides access to the Annual Report. Conman98 (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the three articles listed there--are they merely articles which make reference to an article in that journal, are they articles by people associated with the journal in some manner, or do they talk about it? If it is just the first or seconds , they add no value. If the third, give a short quote for what they say about the journal either in the text or a footnote. Try to add the list of what articles published in the journal have been most cited elsewhere, along with the number of citations -- if the editor of the journal does not have the information, have an academic librarian assist you to find it. What is the circulation of the journal? where is it indexed? As for the articles i on the editors, it is really your responsibility to make them: you are the person writing the article and trying to keep it; you can find the information more easily than I can. Anyway I would suggest to you that the journal should either list their cvs or link to them on its web site.

Now, I will often find this sort of information, and write such articles, but it is hardly my responsibility, and do not have time at present, since I am too involved with other matters here. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Restore Burn and Wound Research[edit]

The article Restore Burn and Wound Research has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uncited, not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 13:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]