User talk:Chicon59

Grey area

When you created your recent articles, did it cross your mind that it might be a good idea to put in each one a link to grey literature? Indeed did it cross your mind that you were contributing to Wikipedia and that a degree of adherence to Wikipedia standards might be a good idea; such as wikifying each article and providing references? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you created two new articles after the above message. Was it really too difficult for you to do the basic thing of giving each a link to grey literature? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Roger, you are right that these new entries need internal and external links, especially to grey literature but also to other wikipedia entries. My approach was first to create the entries (there is still one missing), then to inform our grey community (1000+ library managers and information scientists all around the world) inviting them to improve thses entries, and in the same time (e.g. the next couple of weeks) add links, sources and so on. I think this should be ok for the wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate your reactivity and suggestions. Best wishes from France, Joachim. Chicon59 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The TextRelease article created last week was deleted yesterday, without any discussion. I don't understand these editorial ethics. I asked for some more days for updating the article - no reply. I suggested to merge it with another article - no reply. No exchange with any expert from the field. I think that this is rather shitty for a global publishing project. How to proceed now? (Chicon59 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

GLISC

Noticed your creation of GLISC. Might I suggest you make it a disambiguation page instead? Its pretty much the same as what you have, but a little different, and consistent with what we have across the rest of wikipedia. - Drew Smith What I've done 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SIGLE

Again, you should go with a disambiguation page for pages like this. Please look into it. - Drew Smith What I've done 14:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Drew, yesterday I tried to create a disambiguation page but I am afraid, I didn't understand. Assistance may be helpful. Thanks, Joachim. Chicon59 (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew is confused. He was trying to tell you to create redirects - now done. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

We absolutely do not move European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation to European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation (EAGLE). Instead once it has been accepted as notable, we create a link to it in Eagle (disambiguation). — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine with me. Chicon59 (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

suggested merges

As an alternative to deletion, I'd suggest SIGLE into System, and GLISC and Eagle into GreyNet. (or any other way you think more suitable) Make absolutely certain none of them have material copied from their web sites or other publications. Remove minor information, such as board members and delegates. List of Conferences is OK. Sample catalog record is dubious. I advise you to do this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process. I shall do it if you don't but obviously you're the better choice to know whagt are the key parts and the direction of the merge. Please feel free to ask me for advice--I've worked on some similar articles. I do not think all the articles will stand at AfD, and it would be better to have fewer but stronger articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Dear David, thank you for your helpful advice. Please find here some elements of a response. Possibly copyright violation: You are right, some parts of the created articles are take from websites and publications. Nevertheless, this has been done in full agreement with the copyrigt owners, e.g. authors. In fact, we are working and functioning as an international scientific and professional network, and we decided earlier this year to upload central information on scientific grey literature mainly on the English wikipedia (but you will find other articles on the French or German wikipedias). Mergers: If you think that we created too many articles, I'd suggest to merge TextRelease into GreyNet, as their publishing body. GLISC is an independent organisation and should stay alone. EAGLE was an European network funded by the EC during 25 years; we created the article for historical reasons. The SIGLE database was their product, known by LIS professionals as the most important international database on grey literature over the world. Recently, SIGLE was transformed into an open access database (OpenSIGLE). I would prefer to keep the three articles (for SIGLE, you can find a French article) but if you think it would be better to merge, so merge the European association EAGLE into the article on SIGLE. Hope this is clear. :) (Chicon59 (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Speedy deletion nomination of Grey Literature Network Service

A tag has been placed on Grey Literature Network Service 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 blatant 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. Eeekster (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The authors of the Wikipedia article are the right owners of the original text. We will add a formal permission. Please stop the speedy deletion process. (Chicon59 (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Chicon59/Atelier national de reproduction des thèses has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atelier national de reproduction des thèses, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Atelier national de reproduction des thèses, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)