User talk:Haezwart

Welcome!
Hello, Haezwart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mdd (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Harry Kempen
Hi Haezwart, I have (temporary) undone your revision of the Harry Kempen lemma, because I fail to see how this is an improvement. If you might explain your intention, we could find a solution. -- Mdd (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Haezwart (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Hi Mdd, the reference was to a webpage which is no longer existent, I replaced this by the url of the current website which is still maintained Hub Zwart


 * Hi Hub, Well I found that:
 * the link http://www.filosofie.science.ru.nl/cv/cve.html is still online, and
 * the link http://www.filosofie.science.ru.nl/ is just a link to the specific department.
 * Restoring the link, see here, doesn't seem a suitable solution. Alternatively, linking to the site at archive.org, see here, might be? -- Mdd (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for the record : The main/only reason the link is there, is to reference that you are indeed a student of Harry Kempen. It is not meant as a general link to your website. If this was so, I would have linked to this webpage. So the info at the http://www.filosofie.science.ru.nl/cv/cve.html can be patrtly outdated, this is not really of any concern. -- Mdd (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am rather surprised by your reply. First of all, if you would take the trouble to look at http://www.filosofie.science.ru.nl/cv/cve.html, you would notice immediately that this website is outdated and no longer functional, the links no longer work. And if you would have taken the trouble to look at the link I used, you would have noticed that it is not the website of a department as you seem to suggest, but indeed my personal website, to which your article claims to refer. The current reference is very unprofessional and sloppy. My position is clear: either the reference to me or my work used by you is adequate, or please remove any references to me or my work, if not, that is: if you for some reason refuse to do this properly and professionally, I will remove this unprofessional link or any other 'reference' to my work (inserted without my consent) myself; sloppy references are detrimental for the reliability of wikipedia, HZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.126.157 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, which made me realize I interpreted the filosofie.science.ru.nl website differently. However, I replaced the general link to the website to the specific link (the updated cv) which confirms the fact. -- Mdd (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Life Sciences, Society and Policy journal
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Life Sciences, Society and Policy journal, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.lsspjournal.com/about.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Life Sciences, Society and Policy journal


A tag has been placed on Life Sciences, Society and Policy journal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lsspjournal.com/about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. BU Rob13 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Article Centre for Society and the Life Sciences (CSG) deleted
Hello. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. I have deleted your article Centre for Society and the Life Sciences (CSG) a copyright violation of this website. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policies. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Life Sciences, Society and Policy


The article Life Sciences, Society and Policy has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable (relatively new) journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (and apparently not even in non-selective ones either), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

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 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 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Haezwart. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Life Sciences, Society and Policy, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 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.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. ''Judging from your talk page, most of your editing involves articles on subjects that you have a COI with. I suggest to direct your attention elsewhere.'' Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear RandyKitty,

Thanks for the feedback. I am a recent contributor to wikipedia, and obviously still have a lot to learn. My contribution was not meant as advertisement (it is not a commercial enterprise), but rather to point out new podiums for colleagues working in similar areas as me to become involved in (I believe: important and relevant) debates. But, again, I see your points. I have now improved the article, someone else has been working on it as well I noticed, and hope to be able to continue to improve it, and embed it more properly in the wikipedia environment. But I acknowledge your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haezwart (talk • contribs)

comments on feed back
Dear RandyKitty,

Thanks for the feedback. I am a recent contributor to wikipedia, and obviously still have a lot to learn. My contribution was not meant as advertisement (it is not a commercial enterprise), but rather to point out new podiums for colleagues working in similar areas as me to become involved in (I believe: important and relevant) debates. But, again, I see your points. I have now improved the article, someone else has been working on it as well I noticed, and hope to be able to continue to improve it, and embed it more properly in the wikipedia environment. But I acknowledge your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haezwart (talk • contribs)
 * Dear Hub, many people try to promote many things on WP that are not commercial. COI still applies. Nobody besides you and me has been editing the article (Yobot is a bot, a program that does some automatic maintenance). It is too bad that you didn't look at the notability guidelines that I linked in the PROD message. I have linked them again in the deletion debate (see below) that I have started. Please have a look, it may help you to show that your journal is notable after all. Tips on how to write an acceptable article on an academic journal can be found in our journal article writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Life Sciences, Society and Policy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Life Sciences, Society and Policy 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 Articles for deletion/Life Sciences, Society and Policy 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)