User talk:Dscalice

NASA Astrobiology Institute

The NAI has a place here; but the very fact that you think you crafted a neutral piece is illustrative of the problem. Working for the NAI as you do, naturally you see it in the best light. Imagine, if you will, an article about Microsoft written by Bill Gates; even if you trusted Gates, you could imagine that it would be somewhat easier on Vista problems than an article written by an end user, a Mac programmer or a Linux guru! The language reads like a press release, full of glittering generalities like, "As NAI enters its second decade, its scientists continue to explore the limits of life on Earth, develop new ways to search for life elsewhere in the Universe, and advance our understanding of how life itself originated on our own planet." That's not encyclopedic content; that's fluffy-bunny candyfloss for the Appropriations Committee hearing. And as a government worker, I snort in scorn at the assertion that "i don't see how we're promoting our own interests"!!!! Proxmire is gone, but NASA-haters abound; naturally you have a distinct interest in painting all NASA projects in a good light. Citations to the subject's own website are not considered reliable sources for most assertions, by the way. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody at the Institute should leave the article alone! If there is additional information from reliable, impartial third-party sources establishing the Institute's notability and describing what it is and what it does, then offer links to those sources on the talk page of the article. Remember: nobody, least of all the NAI, owns this article. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Once you've submitted it, it belongs to the ages. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest again!

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article NASA Astrobiology Institute, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, 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;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

What part of "Everybody at the Institute should leave the article alone!" was unclear? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to talk pages

New posts to talk pages go at the bottom, not the top, of the page. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]