User talk:Stevecarsonr

Trends in SCADA
You added some information in the Trends in SCADA section of the SCADA article. Some of the content looked like an advertisement and the reference and link to PumpView was removed. You made similar content changes to Remote Terminal Unit‎. I think the information you added to the SCADA article is useful, but I would like to see some sources that support this as a trend. In addition some information to balance the information you presented would be nice to see. I tried to add some. Finally, I'm a little concerned about your continued adding of references to PumpView. From an encyclopedic viewpoint, why mention only PumpView? Should we also add links to: You can understand, I hope, my concern here. How do we decide which products to mention and which to exclude? Note that I did not remove the most recent reference to PumpLink; I thought it might be worth talking a bit about it. Also, I try to be very careful about my edits because of my association with GE Fanuc -- see User:Ishi_Gustaedr. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ATSI
 * Healy-Ruff H2Ovation (example)
 * M2M iServices
 * WebSCADA
 * AutoSol's AES
 * etc

Not sure how to respond to the above user -Ishi_Gustaedr - maybe someone can assist - don't know if he sees this comment here - as I am very new to wikipedia.

My comment on the SCADA article (relating to Ishi's points above), I saw that various manufacturers were already named under SCADA trends - "Wonderware's Archestra, and Rockwell Automation's FactoryTalk" - so I originally added PumpView as an example of a different trend. I couldn't understand why the reference to PumpView as an example of on-line SCADA had been removed - how would someone find out more, for example? On-line SCADA is only one possible term of many and there isn't really an accepted industry term.

I thought maybe someone removed it because it was a link to the website - maybe for some reason that wasn't considered the wiki way - so, because other SCADA vendors are named - I thought I would put back in the reference to PumpView without the link.

Further comment on the point above, no reason for other editors not to add references to other on-line SCADA systems, in fact, that would be great. Why not do that instead of removing information?

On a more general question, but raised by Ishi - Citations - it is a new field and so there are no "citations" that I know of. The industry moves forward because there is new and exciting technology and people start using it without citations in peer reviewed sources. I think it's an area that needs some clarification by the wiki folk - of course, asking for peer review of content is the "right approach", but companies forge ahead in new directions, and new technologies emerge without this "independent verification". I noticed that the "RTU" page needs "citations", but I'm guessing that 99% of the people who know the most about the product, the applications and even the history would have no idea where to find a citation that an RTU even exists never mind what it is. Nevertheless, they are real, and 100+ companies produce them. Hope someone can shed some light on the right policy for writing without "legitimate citations". Stevecarsonr (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a long Q! I hope you don't mind, I'm gonna remove the [{helpme}} while I read it. I will of course restore the helpme if I can't help. Give me a few mins. --  Chzz  ►  04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, having read your comments;

(1) Welcome to Wikipedia, and I do hope you'll help to contribute to this great resource.

(2) Please read WP:COI and WP:NPOV - I think this will help answer your questions

(3) DO NOT be put off by folk who tell you 'you shouldn't do this' - remember, it's just as much you wikipedia as it it theirs. However - important;


 * (4) if it gets to the argumentative stage, where you vcahnge something, someone removes it, you put it back...STOP. Discuss it on the discussion page, try to reach a consensus/agreement. If that fails, there are mechanisms to take your argument further.

Please do let me know if this doesn't answer your question; I will do my best to help.

--  Chzz  ►  04:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi and, as Chzz said, welcome to Wikipedia. I should have started with that in my first message. Sorry about that. I hope my message wasn't too off-putting.
 * Here are some more things to look at to help you get acquainted. Please note that I am not an admin, I'm just an editor like you, so everything I say is just based on my understanding of the policies. Feel free to ignore me if you don't agree.
 * Chzz gave links to the Conflict of Interest (WP:COI) and Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policies. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines (WP:PG) (there's a distinction between the two) and it can be hard to follow it all. Here's my take on the way to approach it:
 * Start with the Five Pillars (WP:5P). They summarize the policies and guidelines.
 * Follow that with a quick scan of policies and guidelines (WP:PG).
 * Look through the List of Policies (WP:LOP). There's a number of them, so just start with the ones you find interesting.
 * Same with the List of Guidelines (WP:LOGL).
 * The Manual of Style (WP:MOS) is a good guide for language and content in articles.
 * Now, back to my comments. I think, to summarize, I had two thoughts.
 * Two of the policies on Wikipedia are No Original Research (WP:NOR]] and Verifiability (WP:VER). There are plenty of examples of articles that violate this rule, but we still strive to adhere to it. So, give some thought to your paragraph and see if it follows the policy. Another thought is to start a new section on the talk page and get other people's thoughts (although that's not strictly necessary -- you'll get feedback in the form of edits). Here's an example: I'm a mathematician (well, not really, but go with it). If I come up with a proof to a problem in mathematics and I post in on wikipedia in the article about that problem. Let's say some other mathematicians comment on the talk page and agree that the proof is correct. Until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is still considered original research and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. That may be a little counter-intuitive, but that's how Wikipedia is defining itself as an encyclopedia.
 * Some external links are useful and some are considered spam. There is no policy covering this, but there are two guidelines: Spam (WP:ADS) and External Links (WP:EL). Again, I'll let you read the guidelines and come to your own conclusion. Note that in this case, given my potential for conflict of interest, I will not remove your links or references again. (Although, had you not joined the community and engaged in discussion, I might have.)
 * In my mind, one of the most important and most difficult guidelines to follow is Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF).
 * So, once again, welcome. I look forward to your continued contributions! --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz & thanks Ishi for your comments. I get the point about independent sources for Wikipedia but I suspect that there is a wide discrpance between the purist view and what actually happens or even what's really desirable. Surely this has been discussed to death in a forum somewhere and if you know of it please point me towards it.

My feeling is that for Wikipedia to be up to date - surely desired by 90%+ of users - it has to have heaps of "non-peer reviewed" sources. In the industries that I am in and have been in, almost no one pushing the technical boundaries are publishing in peer-reviewed journals. That's for the pure science world.

At best, vendors get articles written and published in industry magazines as a means to tell that section of their world what is going on (from their point of view). Vendors also publish now in so many forums. I have a hard time seeing that the purist approach to Wikipedia can work - as I can see from looking at the 2 subjects I am most interested in at the moment - RTUs and SCADA. If the Wiki purists were serious they should delete both entire topics until "peer reviewed literature" was available. I don't think that would be a step forward! 100,000s of people work in these industries (maybe millions). Again, maybe this has been debated to death somewhere, but perhaps "new technology & trends" should have some more useful and practical criteria. Maybe something like - product/vendor list at the end of a section ("vendors/products" link so it doesn't clutter up the page); list of industry journals and magazines; industry magazines/website "citations" (=articles) - the idea being let's accept reality and find a way to keep people up to date, otherwise we might have nothing in wikipedia on important changes within the last 10 years that aren't front page news. What do you think? Stevecarsonr (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on secondary sources. I don't agree that people working in "new technology and trends" don't publish in peer reviewed magazines. In fact, I'd say that most of the engineering fields, including controls engineering and software engineering which cover quite a bit of the SCADA field, do. See, for example, the work by Thomas B. Sheridan or papers and books such as
 * SCADA and RTUs have been around for decades. I quick search on Amazon for books with SCADA in the title turned up 37 titles. Control system engineering is taught in schools. There should be plenty of sources for the bulk of both articles. What I think we need is someone who is passionate about writing encyclopedic articles about these (and other related) topics.
 * In addition, articles in industry magazines probably fall somewhere between "self published" and "primary sources" and can be used with care in certain circumstances. For example, if the claim is that some vendors are offering SCADA over the web, then a few articles in the industry magazines about that (even though they were really written by the companies making those products) is probably a good enough source.
 * All I can do is point you again to Original_research and if you want to discuss it with some other people, maybe try No original research/noticeboard. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SCADA and RTUs have been around for decades. I quick search on Amazon for books with SCADA in the title turned up 37 titles. Control system engineering is taught in schools. There should be plenty of sources for the bulk of both articles. What I think we need is someone who is passionate about writing encyclopedic articles about these (and other related) topics.
 * In addition, articles in industry magazines probably fall somewhere between "self published" and "primary sources" and can be used with care in certain circumstances. For example, if the claim is that some vendors are offering SCADA over the web, then a few articles in the industry magazines about that (even though they were really written by the companies making those products) is probably a good enough source.
 * All I can do is point you again to Original_research and if you want to discuss it with some other people, maybe try No original research/noticeboard. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can do is point you again to Original_research and if you want to discuss it with some other people, maybe try No original research/noticeboard. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:MultiTrode MultiSmart ProductImage.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MultiTrode MultiSmart ProductImage.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Multitrode
A tag has been placed on Multitrode requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mattinbgn\talk 04:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question for the administrators
Hope that someone sees this. Not sure I get the rationale. Don't put up company info/bios unless there is "something notable about them"? What does that mean? After seeing lots of company history/bios I thought, ok, that's acceptable and desirable wikipedia info. I modeled what I wrote on Allen Bradley. Allen Bradley is still there - what is notable in the company bio about that company? Or MDS? Lots more examples. Forgive the new person on Wikipedia, but the official rules seem a lot different from the practice. Is it companies above a certain size? Or who have been acquired by companies above a certain size? Or some other unwritten rule about what "notable" means. Why not make it explicit and save lots of newcomer's time.

Stevecarsonr (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A few more companies CitectSCADA - is this just a product pitch? Is it that Schneider bought them that makes it notable? Codan - nothing notable, is it because they are listed on the ASX? Leica I can understand - but look at the last section, it is a long list of their current products, shouldn't this be tagged for deletion?

Stevecarsonr (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, my talk page is the best place to reach me. The best places to look for guidance are Wikipedia's policy on notability in general and companies specifically. Note that pointing to other articles doesn't address the issues with your article, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why this line of argument is discouraged. You may wish to seek further advice at Help desk.  Good luck! -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Conductive-probe-install.JPG
A tag has been placed on File:Conductive-probe-install.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Radiant chains (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Conductive-probe-install.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Conductive-probe-install.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)