User talk:Menofscience2012

Hello, this is my talk page. Menofscience2012 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Menofscience2012

Speedy deletion nomination of Max Planck Florida Institute


A tag has been placed on Max Planck Florida Institute requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. 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 belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — 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 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 that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sparthorse (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems
Hi, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~. There were four main issues with the article as it looked when it was deleted.
 * It did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts or show that it meets the notability guidelines.
 * It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of spammy claims lacking in-line references to independent sources taken from just the opening two paragraphs include  One of the most prestigious scientific organizations worldwide... Seventeen Nobel laureates have emerged... outstanding scientists with a broad range of expertise in a cohesive, collaborative environment... MPFI meets this challenge... cutting edge scientific discoveries
 * The article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required.
 * The fact that this article was likely to be a copyright infringement was flagged up by its lack of wikilinks or references. You would at least expect a Nobel laureate, like Bert Sakmann, to be linked to his article

Hope this helps, have a look at Royal Society to see what a really good article looks like  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, there are all sorts of pitfalls for new editors. If we can salvage an article relatively easily, we will do so, but the copyright issue meant that was a non-starter here. Many editors are surprised that they can't use their own websites for the text, but unless it is explicitly PD or CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed, we can't use it  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Max Planck Florida Institute


A tag has been placed on Max Planck Florida Institute, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jeancey (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Still lots of problems
 * You have only one factual statement, which is where it is. Nothing about number of staff, income/expenditure or why it is notable.
 * attracts scientists from diverse backgrounds to collaborate in finding new approaches to understanding the structure, function, and development of neural circuits &mdash; presented as fact without independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts,reads like an advert.
 * You shouldn't have any urls in the text. If there is an existing article, use a wikilink, as you have with Jupiter, Florida. If you are using it as a reference, format as an in-line reference like this so the url appears in the references section below. Anything else with a url, not used as a reference, should be in the external links section, as you have done. I wouldn't link to individual people or groups except with wikilinks if they have an existing article, like Bert Sakmann. External links to subdivisions or individual staff looks like spam, you need independent references, not masses of links to your own site.
 * Basically, you need more facts and less promotion. In my view, the existing version does not tell me why it is notable, and seems promotional rather than factual.

Don't worry too much if it does get deleted (I won't delete it myself for now, since I'm aware that you are prepared to work on it). If it goes, let me know and I'll recreate in a sandbox where you can work on it until it's fit for purpose.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)