User talk:Pawelpacewicz

Welcome!

Hello, Pawelpacewicz, 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, such as SORCER, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

old news

Speedy deletion nomination of SORCER If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on SORCER, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Nomination of SORCER for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SORCER is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC) November 2013 Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It doesn't even matter if this corrects grammar or spelling. The sole edits that are allowed are these to correct format without altering a single other aspect of the comment. In deletion discussions your own comments are the important ones. You may not, absolutely not, alter anyone else's Fiddle Faddle 12:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC) thank You very much for Your commment. You are fuly right - my mistake. I'm sorry. Could You please advise me - should I revert it back? --Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC) There is no need. I have done so already. There is much for you to study, I'm afraid. Please start with WP:ACADEME, WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability in no particular order, but please do read and understand all three. Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Service-object-oriented architecture The article Service-object-oriented architecture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: This is a WP:OR essay based around a set of primary sources. notability is lacking as are references in reliable sources. It is part of a series of articles by the same editor(s) which appear to be intended as WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT to create notability for the protagonists in the project(s). While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Fiddle Faddle 00:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not academe

I think you need to read WP:ACADEME to understand more of this place. Mounting a spirited defence of your work, and I perceive you to be part of the SORCER programme from your edits and fervour for the project, may be usual in the world of academe, but fails here. Wikipedia reacts differently. All you have to do on Wikipedia is quietly and unemotionally to add references in WP:RS to ensure that the WP:N of the subject of the article is covered by WP:V. The case for SORCER to remain is not made. Make that case with work, not with rhetoric.

Please understand that it is an absolute requirement on Wikipedia for a notable thing to have that notability verified in reliable sources. Show that the thing has genuine notability and all the issues surrounding it will go away as if by magic. The amount of rhetoric you are deploying seems to follow the rule that the index of notability is inversely proportional to the quantity of rhetoric used to seek to show it. Fiddle Faddle 10:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

howdy

Hello Pawel, did I guess your name correctly?  :-)   Please call me 74. Great work on the SORCER article, I like it, so far. I have tried to explain over on the Talk:SORCER page what will help get the tags off the article. I'd be happy to help if I can, and especially try to answer your questions.

  In particular, wikipedia has a special definition of a secondary source: one that is independently fact-checked, independently peer-reviewed, or independently publisher-editorial-board-confirmed. There seems to be some confusion that, if another scientist or engineer (other than the original author/inventor) writes another paper which *cites* the original papers on SORCER, that makes the second paper into a "secondary source". This is close, but not quite correct... the second paper has to be *about* SORCER specifically in large part (just citing prior work is not enough), and furthermore, the second paper has to be fact-checked / peer-reviewed / editorial-board-confirmed *itself* to be considered a wikiReliable Source.

  Anyhoo, we can chat about that subtle distinction, or prose changes, or whatever, here on your talkpage, or over on the article-talkpage, as appropriate. If you reply to me, and I don't respond quickly, please feel free to leave me some sort of hey-you note on my own talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia, appreciate it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing, methinks we are doing well. I will ping the other folks, and see if they agree. Thanks for your good work. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion about who will be working on what, here. Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing Are you okay with moving all the current talkpage to an archive, so we can see what we're doing? It's pretty cluttered, now. Also, I have attempted to rewrite the first paragraph into a more neutral form, please give me your suggestions and criticisms. Talk:SORCER#todo_list Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. :-). I'm glad we are working on it :-). I will move it to archive (I'll do it 1st time - so I'll find sth. in wikipedia help and follow that instructions - I guess it's easy). Of course I'll share my suggestions. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, me too. It takes a bit to get everything cleaned up, but if we go slow and steady, with me hacking away and you trying to keep me from going too far off the pathway, we should get through all the paragraphs of the article, and then after our first pass, we can step back, and see whether we have knocked off most of the ugly tags at the top, and what to do next. Wikipedia articles are supposed to start off with the basics, and then gradually build up the to more advanced concepts, as we go. It may take more than one pass to get this correct. But we'll get there, methinks. Thanks for improving wikipedia, happy new year, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of SORCER for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SORCER is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Pawelpacewicz, happy proleptic gregorian increment.  :-)   This is actually a MOVE discussion, not a deletion, I hasten to point out. It is also procedural, and not permanent, please see over here. Left you and Professor Sobolewski a note, over here — User_talk:Mwsobol#procedural_discussion_only.2C_be_ye_not_alarmed — feel free to discuss with me on my talkpage, if you like (click 'talk' by my name, then click 'new section' at the top, leave me a message, and click 'save'). Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Paselpacewicz, this message[1] is not helpful to SORCER nor to yourself... it is no good saying mean things regardless of whether or not you believe they are truthful things... so I have broken etiquette and deleted it from the talkpage, per WP:IAR. Hope that you understand. As for myself, *I* understand that you are frustrated, as is Professor Sobolewski, and that wikipedia is not treating either of you very well. But that is not Tim/FiddleFaddle's fault, that is a problem with wikipedia, and you have to be WP:NICE even when it is hard, please.

  Anyways, you are free to express your frustrations on my user-talkpage, which I can read and then delete, but it is not helpful to take out your frustrations on anybody else, even when you believe they are the cause for your frustration. Please WP:RELAX and remember there is no WP:DEADLINE, plus remember to WP:IMAGINE that everything is not always as it seems. Hope this helps, and I left you a big bunch of new messages on Talk:SORCER, when you are calm and collected, please comment if my conclusions are correct. Thanks for your understanding. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions of me you are required to be civil

This diff is unpleasant and rude. Your behaviour is very close to unacceptable. Indeed others may judge this statement to be unacceptable. You will see that it has been redacted by another editor. However strongly you feel about your project's inclusion on Wikipedia you must remain civil at all times. Wikipedia has long had a policy of no personal attacks, and you are required to adhere to it.

Your personal opinions of me are irrelevant. Your role is to behave with civility and within Wikipedia's rules. One of those rules concerns the massive conflict of interest you have with the SORCER project.

You believe it to be notable. I do not. So, we disagree. That is not a bad thing nor a good thing. It is just a fact. We disagree.

Now the wider community has a second chance to discuss it and to reach a formal conclusion. That is a good thing. If it is notable it will remain. If not then it will go. There will be no fanfare if it remains and no funeral if it goes. This is WIkipedia, where all actions, great and small are open to global public scrutiny. Your comment will exist on that talk page for all time, as do mine here, and that happens even if the page is deleted. Wikipedia is a vehicle where nothing is lost.

With regard to SORCER, you will not save it by rhetoric. You may save it by work, proving that the topic is notable by use of reliable sources. What you need to do is to show, and show unambiguously, that WP:N is WP:V in WP:RS. This is put succinctly in WP:42. It is not up to me to sift through the unreliable and primary sources, not at all. It is up to people who wish SORCER to be in this encyclopaedia to prove it. See WP:BURDEN.

I have very little intention of interacting with you or SORCER or the deletion discussion again, but I reserve the right to do so, and would whether I said so or not. I have tried very hard over the past two months to lead you towards what you or others need to do in order to establish WP:N for the thing. I have requested other eyes on the sources, I've found experts to look at the thing, and I have repeatedly told you what must happen. Most poor grade Wikipedia articles, and make no mistake, this is not a good grade article, do not get this level of attention, nor leeway. They get nuked on sight. Now you have a deadline, but that is the only change.

Work is required, as is rigour, not insults and not rhetoric. It is not my work. Please, once again, read WP:ACADEME when you will begin, I hope, to understand Wikipedia and the uneasy relationship it has with Academe. It will never change for any individual, individuals have to change for it. Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is solid advice, though perhaps more blunt than I would phrase it. One correction, is that there is absolutely positively still no WP:DEADLINE, because this AfD is just a discussion of whether to keep or move. Any "delete" vote just means, temporarily delete the URL pointing to the SORCER article-content from mainspace, and move the actual content of the article and the talkpage and the talkpage-archive into the AfC/drafts/similar location, until the rewrite pawelpacewicz and myself are working on is finished. But my prediction is keep, the google-scholar stuff that Garamond pointed me too, and the magazines Ahnoneemoos kindly found, will likely ensure that. p.s. I guess there is a second correction that needs making... wikipedia is not currently a nuclear superpower.  :-)   Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

74 is slightly mistaken. There is a 21 day deadline for deletion discussions, though they are usually handled in 7 days. The discussion has three options: To keep, to delete, or to preserve while moving form main name space. It is most likely that the first or second options will happen. The third is a luxury, and it might. One may also opt for userfication if an article is deleted.

There is no point in periphrasis. There has been quite enough of that in the discussions on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin over the primary sources. If you are going to work on the article, its sources, or discuss the deletion, get to work with a will, and deal in cold facts. And do it now. Fiddle Faddle 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)