User talk:Alexm1313

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Alexm1313! I am Pianotech and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Piano tech  15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Stick to the facts please
Regarding this series of edits to Frozen Ark: please stick to the facts. Speculation about the need for the project or the usefulness of the project to future generations of scientists are not encyclopedic and should not be included in this article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Frozen Ark has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please do not restore the content I have deleted from your article without first discussing it. I would like to come to a consensus with you on this material, but your dogged determination to simply restore the material without discussion is not at all productive. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning
Regarding this change to Frozen Ark: I hope you will discuss these changes here before simply re-inserting the material. If you choose not to discuss it, I will ask for other opinions. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a discussion of rates of extinction on this page, as that topic is thoroughly covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, and covering it here simply means that the information must be maintained in multiple places.
 * There is no evidence that the information will be extremely important to future scientists. Clearly, there is a hope that this will be the case (else the project is useless), but there is no evidence to support this claim.
 * Stylistically, one would never say "animals are facing a huge amount of extinction".
 * The expectation that 1/4 of the world's species will go extinct over the next 30 yeas is uncited, and is unnecessary in this article. By linking to the article on extinction, we can provide a link to the necessary information without duplicating it (or providing incorrect information) in this article.  Duplication of information across multiple articles is called content forking and is discouraged.

Conflict of interest
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Frozen Ark, 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:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see 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. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I see that you have continued to edit Frozen Ark after I have made several attempts to contact you, both here and at Talk:Frozen Ark regarding the content of the page and the appropriateness of your editing it. Since you do not appear willing to engage in discussion of the matter, I will bring the matter to the Dispute Resolution process. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You now have input from a second, independent editor regarding the content of Frozen Ark, and yet you continue to revert changes without entering into discussion. If you continue in this manner, you will likely be blocked. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Help
Help Wikidan!!! Seen your page, and realised you had been editing it too (explains alot). I have no clue how to get through to talk to you. I just thought that I was somehow messing up the page, I had no idea you were counter-editing it. I didn't realise you were "officially" wikipedia. I am part of the Frozen Ark team, and we don't have a wikipedia entry. How am I meant to contact you? I swear I am not being aggressive, just a genuine newbie and have no idea how I am meant to talk to you. I tried adding a message to your user page. How do I found out the parts you didn't like and why I am not allowed to put them in. Sorry for the mix up, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexm1313  (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 July 2010
 * To start, I am not "officially Wikipedia". I'm just another editor, just like you, although one with someone more experience.  When I left message here for you, you should have seen a banner at the top of the page that says "You have new messages" -- the banner contains a blue link, and clicking on it would bring you here.  Since you have found your talk page, we can communicate here -- I'll keep an eye on this page so I'll know when you respond.
 * That being said, let's take a look at your article. There are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I have been trying desperately to address them, but you seemed quite intent on undoing every change I made.  So let's discuss them rather than fighting over them.
 * The content in the lead (the opening paragraph) regarding the threat of extinction is inappropriate. Much that is presented there represents unsourced opinions, and Wikipedia requires verifiability, so such material cannot be allowed to remain.
 * The organization's motto does not belong in the body of the article (although it would not be inappropriate to add it to an "infobox" (a box that appears at the top right of the article that gives a "snapshot" of the organization -- look at the article of any major company to see what I mean).
 * The section describing Bryan Clarke is overly long -- since there is already an article about him, it is unnecessary, even inappropriate, to duplicate the contents on this page.
 * You absolutely may not include a section soliciting donations for the organization. This would violate Wikipedia's spam policy.
 * A quick glance around the Frozen Ark website indicates that your user name and the name of one of the people involved in that project are very similar, which probably means you have a conflict of interest. Your goal is to promote the project, but that is not Wikipedia's goal.  If you cannot edit the article with Wikipedia's goal in mind, you shouldn't edit it at all.
 * I hope that we can resolve the conflict and produce a fair, unbiased article about the project. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm another editor that noticed the dispute.
 * Let me try to summarize some of the problems and propose a solution:
 * Wikipedia has numerous policies and guidelines to prevent it from being used for promotional purposes. WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI are the most relevant, and provide links to additional information about such problems and how to approach resolving them.
 * Because you are part of the Frozen Ark team, you have a conflict of interest. Until you've learned more about editing Wikipedia with a conflict of interest, it's best to contribute to the article's talk page rather than directly to the article itself.  On the article talk page, the most important contribution you could make at this time would be to help us establish that Frozen Ark is notable, by providing references to independent, reliable sources about Frozen Ark. Such sources will also serve to ensure that the information in the article is properly verified and presented in a neutral manner. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Frozen Ark
** Reply from alexm1313 ** Dear Wikipedia editors, I am glad we can talk on this, sorry about previous non-communication, I am new and I am sorry if I offended you. Ok, I have taken your comments on board and I agree with some of them. I am a Scientist called Alex Marshall at the University of Nottingham, in the UK. What is your level of Scientific experience to be able to make some of your comments? As in who are you guys exactly? Are you scientists? If scientists, then you would have a full appreciation of just how important the Frozen Ark is. Credibility of the Frozen Ark: BBC news article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3928411.stm If you aren't from England, this is pretty much the best for scientific news if it makes the BBC.
 * The point is not how well versed any of us is in science. I could claim to have a PhD in evolutionary biology -- how would you know whether I did or not?  That is why Wikipedia relies on reliable sources -- published reports providing significant coverage in independent media (journals, newspapers, etc).  If such coverage cannot be found, the article is not likely to be left intact.
 * That single article provides some evidence of notability. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only article that can be found.

Alex's answer: The Frozen Ark has a lot more than one article, I just picked the best one. There are many. -> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3326088/Endangered-species-gain-a-place-on-Frozen-Ark.html -> http://research.nottingham.ac.uk/NewsReviews/newsDisplay.aspx?id=80 -> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100106/ARTICLE/1061060 -> http://www.zsl.org/zsl-london-zoo/whats-on/scientific-meeting-frozen-ark,234,EV.html -> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2004/july/news_5295.html -> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3964789.ece -> http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/frozenark.html -> Youtube video of Professor Bryan Clarke talking about the FA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf5e-Um2Vbk

I agree with removing the donation section, as I checked out the cancer research page, and they don't have it. Apologies for that.
 * Apologies accepted. Wikipedia policies can be hard to understand at first.

Alex's answer: I am sorry for any offence As for a conflict of interest, isn't it appropriate that I do write it? It seems wierd for me not to write it, as I know a lot about the project. I do not understand the problem with that. If this is an issue, I can find someone else who doesn't have a conflcit of interest to write about it instead.
 * The problem with you writing the article is that you are closely associated with the project. It is hard for you to be objective about it, and Wikipedia strives for absolute objectivity in its articles.  (It doesn't always achieve this goal, but it does strive for it.)

Alex's answer: I am confused, I know about the project and I am a biologist, I am the best person to write about this. I can make it less enthusiastic if you want.

Regards to promotion: this isn't about promoting the frozen ark. It is just a really important scientific development in terms of saving the DNA (genetic material) from animals that are becoming extinct. This is essential for genetists, and if you are biologists, you would understand that. Professor Bryan Clarke is a top prize winning scientist whose project should be able to have a wikipedia entry for such an important development.
 * The article appeared at various times to be promotional as it mirrored very closely the content of the project's own website, and went so far as to include information on how to donate. Since that information has been removed, the promotional aspect of the article has lessened significantly.

Alex's answer: That was just simply not knowing you couldn't add a donate section. Sorry :)

Best wishes, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexm1313 (talk • contribs)


 * I have answered the points above individually. Some points that have been mentioned to you that you have not addressed:
 * The lead paragraph still contains material that is unsourced opinion (regarding the predictions of future extinction events). While this may be a widely held opinion in many scientific circles, the fact still cannot be stated without citation.  And since such facts are already covered at extinction, it is inappropriate to cover them here.  If the facts (or well-educated and cited opinions) change in the future, we want to be able to address that at one place in Wikipedia, not in lots of different articles.

Alex's answer: Ok, but that is kind of the point of the project. Could I put Bryan Clarke's motivation with snail decline in the last part of the page, in the top part as that is said by him himself.


 * The section on Bryan Clarke is still overly long -- providing a link to his article and a brief description is all that is needed here. Anything more smacks of promotion by trying to overly impress readers with his credentials.

Alex's answer: ok, his section will be smaller and reference his wikipedia page.


 * I hope this has been helpful. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Alex's answer: Can I now please modify the page to be more along wikipedia lines with the comments corrected? thank you, Alex :)


 * I think has cut the article down to its bare essentials.  Much of the material you added was essentially copied from the project's website (although reworded enough to avoid copyright problems).  As Ron has pointed out, this material is unsourced (other than by the website itself, which is considered a primary source) and unencyclopedic.  The fact that the article has a link to the project's website will allow people who are interested to find out all of that other information.  The information that should be included in this article is that information that can be verified from the sources you have listed.  I'll look through them and see if there is anything more that can be added to the article that is verifiable.  As the user below here has pointed out, your contributions in other articles about biology, evolution, etc, would be invaluable.  Perhaps if you join WP:WikiProject Biology you'll find some interesting areas in which to contribute. Given your conflict of interest with the Frozen Ark article, it might be best if you constrain your input to comments on the article's talk page.  Others will review your comments and make the appropriate changes to the article.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Stick with it
Hi Alex,

Thanks for getting involved in Wikipedia! It is really important that scientists and other experts get involved. I'm sorry that your initial interactions turned out probably much tougher than you ever expected. Unfortunately many scientists seem to have difficult initial interactions with the Wikipedia community and many never come back. I think generally this is due to not knowing or understanding the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. There are a lot of them :) I hope you don't get discouraged from staying involved with Wikipedia. Your contributions are valued! Best wishes. Alexbateman (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I want nothing more to do with this page or its content. The Frozen Ark team deserved a nice page about their important work, that is so key for science. I never would of thought that wikipedia would encourage bullying. I am never going to read a wikipedia page again, because there is no moderation for that kind of behaviour. And no idea of the people and their affiliations for their content. They could be anyone, and not an expert and writing rubbish. I am really concerned for the Frozen Ark not getting a decent page, and i am going to tell them how I treated by your editors. I just didn't know the rules, fair enough, I said sorry, but after that absolute nonsense, I don't want to bother learning them. I didn't even get the chance to sort the issues out. Well done wikipedia for all I see is cyber bullying. Kind regards, Alex Alexm1313 (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm an administrator on Wikipedia. I'm sorry you seem to have had a negative experience here, but if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(another response)


 * I am sorry that you feel that way.


 * I truly wish we could make Wikipedias 'rules' much simpler, and I personally try to do just that; sadly, with the sheer size of this project it is challenging, to say the least.


 * We do, of course, want great articles about all notable subjects, and the best way we can ensure that happens is with our core policy of verifiability.


 * I also assure you that we do not tolerate any form of personal attack, and have procedures to deal with such concerns; I have not looked into the specifics of your contributions (other than a quick look at this talk page) - but if you do wish to complain about any specific edits, please let us know, and appropriate actions could be taken.


 * However - I respect your views, and if you simply wish to stop editing, that is entirely up to you. I would much rather you did change your mind and decided to contribute to other articles - I'm sure you'd see that, when you do not have a conflict of interest, editing Wikipedia can be great fun. If I can help in any way, feel free to ask me on my own talk page. Whatever you decide, I wish you the best.  Chzz  ► 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Alex, I believe you're overreacting here. The content of the Frozen Ark page is undergoing an active discussion at Talk:Frozen Ark.  The discussion involves whether certain content is appropriate under the guidelines of Wikipedia.  Once you engaged in the discussion (which proved difficult at first, but which difficulty has been overcome), the several editors involved in the discussions (including myself) have tried to be open and forthright with you.  There has not been any cyber-bullying, as you claim.  There has merely been a disagreement between yourself and other editors as to what should be on the page.  You are welcome and encouraged to make your own voice heard in the discussion by editing Talk:Frozen Ark and expressing your concerns.  Some of your concerns are legitimate; I believe that  has been overly strict in his interpretation of certain guidelines.  Some of your concerns may not be legitimate in light of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  We won't really know until you express your concerns in that venue.  Truly, Wikipedia can be a bit confusing for the new user.  I hope you will take the opportunity to read through the guidelines that are pointed out in the welcome message at the top of this talk page -- there is some very valuable information in those links.  And I hope you will stay and make your voice heard at Talk:Frozen Ark.
 * P.S. I'm not an admin, but I did see your message and thought I'd put my own 2 cents in. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in people being horrible, and I want no affiliation to that page. Poor newbies who have to put up with that. Wasted hours of my work time for something very simple. That is it for me, I am not interested in that kind of behaviour.


 * Hello Alex. I'd just like to add my voice to those asking that you give us another chance. Wikipedia is a broad church, with many different cultures and perspectives. Sometimes they clash, and can leads to feeling being hurt. But the great thing about it is its a huge project and you could try writing another article and have a great experience. Wikipedia really needs the input of people, like you, who can provide expertize in specialist areas. Your contributions are important to us, and don't forget they did result in the creation of a new article - which is great.
 * Hopefully, at the very least, the fact that a number of Wikipedians want you to stay will go some way to reedeeming us in your eyes! Best, Rockpock  e  t  12:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I will keep trying
Thank you Rockpocket, I will still keep trying. I think I get the rules now. :) Wikipedia is so cool, it would be silly to judge it all based on just a couple of people. Best wishes, Alex :) Alexm1313 (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, that is great news :) Alexbateman (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleased to hear it! I wish you luck with it, and if you ever need any help please don't hesitate to ask. Rockpock  e  t  16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)