User talk:Paulh144

Welcome!

Hello, Paulh144, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cerebral Palsy Research Network (November 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:

We need independent secondary sources with in depth coverage of the subject.

Websites of hospital members aren't what we need.

Papers member researchers have published aren't what we need.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cerebral Palsy Research Network and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Stuartyeates (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paulh144! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Stuartyeates (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CPRN

Please understand that we have little control over how Google reuses our data. If there is more than one plausible target it might be worth converting the page to a WP:DAB, but the target you proposed is still in draft, so it would be inappropriate to link it in articlespace unless it is accepted, you may review some details at MOS:DAB and MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. For deletion you would need to nominate the page at WP:RFD. Though in the absence of any clear WP:RFD#DELETE reason, I think it is unlikely the page will be deleted.

In sum, I counsel patience. If the organization is notable, eventually you will be able to get the draft accepted and we can consider DABification at that time. If the organization is not notable there's nothing to be done here. You may however report issues involving Google via the Feedback button on their search results page, thanks for your understanding. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. While you counsel patience, this may require enrollment in some Zen coursework! The challenge is that Google recognizes that CPRN refers to the Cerebral Palsy Research Network in terms of pages on the internet as demonstrated by the #1 ranking for the term. But their algorithm uses Wikipedia to extract the name of the organization next to the URL. The response to their feedback button has yielded the same answer -- "get this to change with the perceived authority on the internet", i.e., Wikipedia. I have tried multiple times and they have responded that they cannot supersede the algorithm. Whereas the issue for Wikipedia to remove the disambiguation page is one of human judgment. Reasonable people could conclude that the disambiguation page adds no value to the article on the Canadian Policy Research Network but does cause challenges of ambiguity in the greater namespace of the internet. Our nonprofit exists to help people with a very vexing condition and most people find it through Google. I don't expect us to meet the "notability" test for Wikipedia for several years because unlike United Cerebral Palsy, we were not first and unlike Michael J Fox Foundation, we don't have the actor name benefit to generate sufficient notability. So we are stuck in a tweener space that the stewards of the Canadian Policy Research Network did not anticipate when they donated the domain to us.

Can you say if having them weigh in in a WP:RFD discussion would make a difference? My arguments may appear "self interested" (though I am a full time volunteer, CEO and philanthropist to this organization). My patience is only robbing needy people of obvious access to helpful information discoverable on Google. Paulh144 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So given the connection you have to the organization, you should probably review WP:COI if you have not already. I note that you have disclosed the COI and worked on the topic in draftspace as required which is good.

Our internal procedures are largely independent of how Google reuses our data. I think for the most part we would prefer that they not treat us as an authority on the Internet for several reasons, but under the terms of the license anyone is free to modify or reuse our data so long as attribution is provided, so there is little we can do about that.

If you have not done so already already you should update/create the relevant items at WikiData:, which is deeply embedded in the way search engines now operate, in many ways far more so than Wikipedia. They are also significantly less stringent than we are on COI editing, so there is less procedure to navigate. But be mindful that in all cases undisclosed paid editing is a violation of the Wikimedia ToU.

For now it seems The Anome has dabified the page. I can't say whether or not it will stick, but if it doesn't you can always start a discussion on Talk:CPRN. As for WP:RFD, while it is nowhere near as stringently policy based as say WP:FFD, or even WP:AFD, it is nonetheless highly probable that such arguments will carry little weight there. Granted, there's still enough flexibility that WP:RFD#KEEP and WP:RFD#DELETE are not the be all end all in discussions; at the same time Google is misusing our data is unlikely to go far either, though neither I nor anyone else can stop you from starting one if you so choose. Incidentally, since the page is currently a dab if someone wanted to nominate it as is, WP:AFD would now be the correct venue.

If you do not believe the organization is likely to be notable for some time, you may wish to do a joint WP:G7 on the draft with Bcooper63 to have it deleted for now; then if in a few years you believe notability has been established you can go to WP:REFUND, and the page will be restored by the end of the day for you to continue working on. In any case, all drafts are automatically deleted following 6 months of inactivity.

Additional quick point, redirects can't be WP:PRODed (see WP:PRODNOM #5), though in this case it seems the squeaky wheel got the grease, so no worries there. I know this can be a vast and confusing place full of seemingly labyrinthine bureaucratic procedure and with a demandingly steep learning curve, just be polite, try not to worry too much, and if you're confused feel free to go to the WP:TEAHOUSE to get your questions answered. It's especially important for me to point you that direction since I'm not particularly active these years so sometimes I go months without checking in on Wikipedia at all. I mean I don't mind answering your questions if you're OK with potentially long waits, but asking at the WP:TEAHOUSE is best for getting a quick response. Be well, 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply. I appreciate the patient explanations and the links to make the discussion meaningful. I will ask this on Teahouse if you remain as absentee as you expect, but did my article edits violate or just against strong direction of the COI policy. My reading was that it was not ideal but with the disclosure, it was not verboten. And for future reference, was I supposed to further declare the COI in the edit or was it as I assumed that the declaration would be seen. Certainly wasn't trying to hide anything! If I had understood at the outset that we did not meet the notability requirement, I would have just taken the discussion of the redirect route. Thanks again for your time. Paulh144 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined your edits in detail, but from what I glanced over it looked like you were fully in line with policy so far, and no you don't need to declare the COI in every edit summary. Bottom line, it is clear to me that you are trying your best to edit in line with policy, which is the most important thing at this stage.

To delete the draft per WP:G7 you need to add {{db-g7|rationale=DeletionRationale}} to the draft, not to this page. Use the show preview button to make sure you're doing it correctly. In place of DeletionRationale just post an explanation that both you and Bcooper63 are jointly requesting deletion, just for avoidance of doubt you should have Bcooper63 make a WP:Dummy edit to the page right before you place the template, in which they should use their edit summary to indicate they endorse the joint G7. That should go through, would be even better if you could get 67.168.100.230 to also endorse just for avoidance of doubt, but even if it doesn't the draft will be deleted automatically in 6 months so its not a big deal. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is considerable handholding for a non notable article. Much appreciated. Paulh144 (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, while I've modified the relevant Wikidata items and and added some categories to English-language Wikipedia pages that might help automated downstream data processors realise the older CPRN is no longer in business, we are here to build an accurate encyclopedia, not to right wrongs. While Google using us as an ultimate authority for truth may be flattering, it's not our purpose to act as an SEO engine. All the information Google needs is now present, and it's up to them to change their procedures if their algorithm gives the wrong results.

Many of Google's processes have some lag between data changing on the web and those changes being reflected in their output; you might want to wait a few weeks and see if the changes made ripple through into Google's search results.

If after giving this a few weeks' time to ripple through, it still doesn't work because their algorithm is still making the wrong conclusions from our data, and you still really want to push this up Google's list of priorities, you might want to post about this on Hacker News, which is I believe read by senior technical people at Google who might care about getting this right. You might, for example, want to let them know that the formally maintained Research Organization Registry is probably a better source of truth about medical research organizations than a crowd-edited encyclopedia, no matter how well respected, and that the entire ROR dataset is available online in machine-readable form. — The Anome (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the Wikidata items work and the added categories. And also for the reference to Hacker News. I will give it a few weeks. I have reached out to Google before this post but hopefully it will have a positive result in either case. I really appreciate the help! Paulh144 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might also contact ROR and let them know the other CPRN is out of business, and the website address for it in their records no longer valid. They really need to have some way to indicate that values are obsolete. — The Anome (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the continued guidance. Google responded positively to the fact that I tried to get the redirect page removed and tried to get an article posted. Fingers crossed but will pursue ROR too. Paulh144 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to do one other thing; make http://www.cprn.org/index.cfm , which is the old CPRN home page, resolve to a 404 Not Found error, instead of redirecting to your page about the transition. And obviously do the same for the HTTPS version at https://www.cprn.org/index.cfm . This should hopefully make it clear that the old link is obsolete, and help other entities, including automated systems operated by organizations like Google and the Internet Archive, recognise that and either clear it from their records or mark it as historic. — The Anome (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You are the gift that keeps on giving! Thanks again for all the insights and recommendations. It really makes me appreciate Wikipedia that much more! Paulh144 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]