User talk:Franzfiera

June 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Atopica, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. I will leave a welcome template below with some helpful links in it Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reality check
Hi, while I agree that 3.5 million Euros is a lot of money for any single person (unfortunately, it's more than I have in the bank...), it becomes much less impressive if it is going to finance a research project with 10 (ten) participants over 3 (three) years (that's just 100K/year per lab). My own NIH grant is over $1 million for 5 years (and would be about half again as much if I were at a US university instead of a European one). For some reason, only EU grant consortia feel compelled to send out press releases and make Wikipedia articles as soon as they exist (I invite you to go search for equivalent articles on NIH or NSF projects). Of course, it's much easier to tell the whole world what you intend to do rather than actually doing it (which would perhaps be notable). I know that the EU granting agencies put pressure on participants to make publicity, but that doesn't mean a project that still has to produce its first results is actually notable. And, of course, many an EU project (being the awkward consortia they are), does not really result in anything else than what the individual labs could have accomplished for less money. Anyway, articles telling us that "(t)he project will focus", "aim to improve the understanding", "will actively contribute", "realize a policy-relevant guidance", "aims at a better understanding ... using a highly interdisciplinary and integrated approach", etc. etc. etc. sounds more like a (European) grant application than an encyclopaedic article. As usual, the article also makes self-aggrandizing claims, such as "funded by the European Commission" (akin to me claiming to be funded by Bush and Obama) and listing the universities and such where the people involved work as "participants" (we both now that's a fiction, it's not the university that's a participant, it's a person working there who is). Also as usual, the article is mainly sourced on EU databases, sources that were published long before anybody ever thought about this project, and now some magazines printing your press release. (I'm saying "your", because your use of a caption "What they Say About Us" and the fact that you only edit this particular article are pretty clear indications that you are involved in this project and, hence, have a clear conflict of interest here). I strongly advice you to restore the redirect and perhaps add a (short) paragraph to the FP7 article (as done for several other projects). Otherwise this article could be proposed for deletion (and up till now, over 90% of such deletion debates result in the article being deleted, making it significantly more difficult to re-create it in future if ever the project does turn out to have a lasting notability - unlikely for an ephemeral consortium created for just 3 years). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atopica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stakeholder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)