User talk:Susan Schneegans

Susan Schneegans, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Chinese Academy of Sciences reform To the wikieditor who doubts that the source given is the origin of the material that precedes it, this material is indeed taken from the source and has simply been repackaged and reworded for the web. Consequently, please remove the mention 'not in the citation'.Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Susan Schneegans, 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. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Susan Schneegans. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Please do not under any circumstances copy text from other sources and pasts it into a Wikipedia article as you have been doing at Chinese Academy of Sciences. Please read WP:COPYVIO before making any more edits. It is possible that the source that you are copying from is freely released into the public domain. However, even in this circumstance, you must provide acknowledgement of that source and it is still not permissible to copy and paste bulk text. You may quote key definitions etc without risk, but not much more, the rest should be precied in your own words and the source may be used as the reference. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I have removed the content you added to the Chinese Academy of Sciences article, because the UNESCO science report: towards 2030 is released under a CC-by-ND 3.0 NGO license, which is not a compatible license because it does not permit derivative works and our license does. Please do not re-add this material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, you are incorrect about the license of this publication, it clearly states the text is available under CC-BY-SA on the 4th page of the .pdf. Please revert your edits. --John Cummings (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The edition I looked at yesterday via Google Books shows a CC-by-ND 3.0 NGO license on Page ii, but the second revised edition available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf clearly shows a compatible license. It's okay to include it after all. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Higher education in Afghanistan


A tag has been placed on Higher education in Afghanistan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A34382/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf. 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 or other printed material 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 "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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa. I've taken a look at the article above and the content is from an openly licensed document. The copyright statement is on page 4 of this PDF (5mb). I notice that Free-content attribution was used to declare that the content is openly licensed, but it still got picked up by the copyvio report. With high quality content being released by UNESCO it would be beneficial to integrate it into the encyclopedia, especially as this addresses an under-represented area. But this may produce false positives where openly licensed text is being flagged as a copyright violation. Any ideas how to deal with this? Nev1 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The material was copied from http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A34382/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf, not from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf. http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A34382/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf does not have a copyright notice of any kind, and is therefore not released under a compatible license. Like I mentioned on the (now deleted) talk page, the overlap is visible on the Turnitin report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa, as you can see http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A34382/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf is a truncated version of http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf. The former begins at page 567 and ends on 597. The full 820-page document has the copyright statement on page 4. For some reason Earwig picked up on the shortened document which doesn't have the copyright statement. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

UNESCO Science Report material
Hi, if you compare the two PDFs, you will see that researchdirect.uws.edu.au has extracted pages from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf. They are entitled to do this. However, they are obviously not at the origin of the material, UNESCO is. I am the Editor in Chief of the UNESCO Science Report, all the material from which has a CC-BY-SA license. The material I am posting (some as reworked text, some paragraphs as copy and paste) does not infringe copyright and should not be deleted. Susan Schneegans, 2 February, 2016

Proposed deletion of Challenges for innovation in Malaysia
Hello, Susan Schneegans. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Challenges for innovation in Malaysia, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Brexit copyright problem
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/science-technology/single-view-sc-policy/news/what_impact_might_the_brexit_have_on_british_and_eu_science/, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No copyright violation
Dear Diannaa, We discussed this issue for an earlier Wikipedia contribution taken from the same publication, the UNESCO Science Report. The material on the UNESCO science portal is taken from the UNESCO Science Report, which is CC-BY-SA, so there is no copyright violation. The text you saw is simply an excerpt from the report on the Brexit. The source is always the same. I hope this answers your query. (See the Source at the bottom of the Brexit page.) --Susan Schneegans (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What you need to do differently when copying compatibly licensed material is to provide proper attribution. If you don't, you are committing a copyright violation. For example, if you are quoting from a document licensed under a CC-by- 4.0 license, add this as part of your citation: "CC-BY icon.svg Content in this section was copied from this source, which is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License." Alternatively, you can use the template . Place it immediately after the citation and before the closing tag. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa, please could you unblock the revisions Susan made so she can correct the problem? We have been using Template:Free-content attribution using the instructions at Adding open license text to Wikipedia. Can you explain where you tell me where the documentation is for the process you are describing? Many thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked the revisions as suggested, but the content is no longer present in the article. It's been repeatedly removed by other users for reasons unrelated to copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I think I understand why this keeps happening, the copyvio tool you may be using (EarwigBot) isn't finding the original text with the correct licensing statement because the text is from a .pdf, the tool only sees reuses of this text which do not carry the correct license statement. I'm discussing with the creator of Earwigbot how we can get around this issue.


 * Thanks


 * --John Cummings (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Life sciences in the United States
Hello Susan Schneegans,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Life sciences in the United States for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've undone the deletion. The page is indeed copied from another source, as stated at the foot of the page. However, the source was released under an open licence compatible with Wikipedia, and allowing adaptation of this sort. The source section includes the following statement:
 * Nev1 (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Consequences of Brexit for science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. 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) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy
Your addition to the above article was very close to http://bruegel.org/2017/02/brexit-goes-nuclear-the-consequences-of-leaving-euratom/, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You have deleted too much text. There was a second source of the material that was rephrased entirely and you have deleted citations from the White paper that I had found in the original document and that were, themselves, cited by the blogpost. I shall reinstate the material but rephrase the parts that need rephrasing to distance them from the blogpost I quoted.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's true, I did remove some prose that was not copyvio, because it didn't make sense any more without the context of the copied material. Thank you for fixing — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Trends in scientific mobility


A tag has been placed on Trends in scientific mobility requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/who-we-are/director-general/singleview-dg/news/scientists_have_never_been_so_mobile/. 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 or other printed material 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.

The original text comes from the UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030 which is CC BY SA IGO 3.0. The text has been copied onto the UNESCO portal from the report, the report being the original source. Any webpage is entitled to cite material from the report under this license. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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 "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. Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on previous discussions above I have little doubt that you'll come up with some proof that the "© UNESCO 2017" at the foot of the page either doesn't apply or doesn't mean what it says. However, even if the article were to be copyright free, Wikipedia isn't a backup repository for UNESCO's research papers, and UNESCO's research papers are not encyclopedia articles. Cabayi (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am still creating this page. You reviewed it too soon.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's not ready for the mainspace, or you don't want it reviewed yet, start in draftspace, at Draft:Trends in scientific mobility, and don't start the article with a copyright violation. Cabayi (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article did not start with a copyright violation. I could not save my work because of an an editing conflict. I believe it is a Wikipedia rule that new contributors should be treated with courtesy by more experienced Wiki-editors. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , the reason you keep getting false copyvio problems is because the text is originally taken from a publication released as a .pdf and then later added to the website. I'm working on a way to correctly license the website. Please in future check the page for an open licensing template at the bottom of the article before you nominate an article for deletion. Please do not bite the newcomers.


 * Thanks


 * --John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * John, the version I reviewed contained no such open licensing template. A google search for a chunk of the text came back with a page on UNESCO's website which clearly stated "© UNESCO 2017".
 * If you're going to quote the guideline Please do not bite the newcomers, may I point you at Wikipedia's core principals, the 5 pillars,
 * WP:5P1 - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * Wikipedia is not ... a collection of source documents
 * WP:5P3 - Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
 * Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources.
 * Susan, it's possible now to see that there is no violation. Your first version, the version I reviewed was indistinguishable from a copyright violation. Starting with a cut-and-paste from another website will almost inevitably result in this kind of problem. I can only reiterate the advice I gave earlier, start in draftspace, and don't start with a cut-and-paste.
 * I believe I have behaved with courtesy, but courtesy does not extend to tolerating repeated breaches of Wikipedia's core policies. Courtesy runs two ways - you're not exactly encouraging anybody to respect or protect UNESCO's asserted copyright.
 * I wish you well in sorting out your website so that you don't falsely assert copyright where none exists. Cabayi (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Susan. Your user page has been listed at Deletion review/Log/2017 April 10 where editors are weighing in on whether the speedy deletion was justified. Please feel free to comment in the discussion if you would like to do so. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Effects of Brexit on science and technology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Effects of Brexit on science and technology 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/Effects of Brexit on science and technology 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. Widefox ; talk 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Union's scientific cooperation beyond the bloc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eureka. 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) 10:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this error. I have corrected the link so that it goes to the Eureka organization. For some reason, Eureka the organization does not show up in the list of related pages when you are seeking to link to to the organization's page. You have to know the title of the page you are looking for, which I discovered is: Eureka (organization).--Susan Schneegans (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Brexit and arrangements for science and technology. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''restore those tags still appropriate and removed without discussion or addressing the concerns. Further, it's wholly inappropriate for a COI editor to remove considering opinions at AfD. Removal without addressing concerns is deemed disruptive editing.'' Widefox ; talk 15:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Just an FYI, but when you create a new article, try to remember to add associated WikiProjects to the talk page. This helps interested editors spot new articles and work to improve them. Associated WikiProjects can usually be found fairly easily by looking at the talk pages of closely related articles. Timothy Joseph Wood 14:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Science and technology in Turkmenistan) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Science and technology in Turkmenistan, Susan Schneegans!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Kindly remove the content that is not related to the subject of article. Thanks."

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— usernamekiran (talk)  14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Science and technology in Cambodia
I'm just letting you know that I have tagged an article you created, Science and technology in Cambodia, as reading like an essay. Text such as "This article analyses the development of science and technology in Cambodia from a policy perspective" is problematic as Wikipedia articles should summarise what reliable, published sources say about a topic, not analyse that topic. Moreover, text such as "Cambodia is pursuing its impressive transformation from a post-conflict state into a market economy" sounds like your own opinion, and opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice but rather attributed to their holder, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I note that you have created several similar articles, so can I suggest that you read WP:NOTESSAY and review their content when you get the chance? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Larry, if you consult the source, you will see that the analysis is taken from the UNESCO Science Report, which is written by experts. It is thus expert opinion that is given here. However, I see no problem with rephrasing the first sentence to read "This article summarizes the development of science and technology in Cambodia from a policy perspective", however, and removing the author's qualifier of "impressive" to describe the transition. The material in this article and others is being added to Wikipedia through a collaborative project with the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope this clarifies things and that you will be so good as to remove the message you added to the page. With thanks in advance.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing "impressive" is a step forward (the alternative would have been to use wording such as "According to a UNESCO report, Cambodia is pursuing an impressive transformation..."). I have just spotted another problematic sentence: "It will be challenge for Cambodia to enhance the technological capacity of the many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) active in agriculture, engineering and the natural sciences". A challenge according to whom? Articles should not contain speculative opinion like this, expressed in Wikipedia's voice. I don't have time to check all of the articles you have created, but I see that you are working with, so perhaps the two of you could check them for unattributed opinions? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A challenge according to the source. You are suggesting that issues should not be flagged by Wikipedia articles, which contradicts a lot of the material I have read on Wikipedia. Please consult with John Cummings from the Wikimedia Foundation on this and related issues, as your approach would necessitate broad revision of thousands of Wikipedia pages.
 * I've never seen guidance that suggests that opinions should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, even with a source. Please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because there are two sources cited at the end of that paragraph, it is also unclear which opinions (there are several in the paragraph) come from which of the sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are similar problems with Innovation in Malaysia, I'm afraid. "Malaysia needs to reduce its reliance on oil and gas extraction" is stated as a fact, rather than being attributed as an option, as is "More worrying is the fact that the shift towards services has neglected the development of high-tech services". Cordless Larry (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * With this edit, you added the commentary "Viet Nam will need to implement strategies that increase the potential for enhancing technology and skills currently present in large multinational firms to smaller-scale domestic firms" in Wikipedia's voice. This is a further instance of the issue identified above. A Wikipedia article should not be prescribing what a state's economic strategy should be. It may report on what a range of published sources prescribe, but the text needs to attribute these prescriptions clearly. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who I see raised concerns about Innovation in Malaysia above. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The page above was very essay like, and appears to duplicate an existing topic. The topic for this page does appear suitable even if the content is not in encyclopedic style. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since making my comments above, I have realised that these articles are (entirely?) made up of material copy-pasted from the UNESCO report. This seems like a clear NPOV violation to me - Innovation in Malaysia is actually UNESCO's analysis of innovation in Malaysia. I have no doubt that the UNESCO report is an excellent source, but this is not the way to write Wikipedia articles., given the number of articles potentially involved here, would you recommend that I raise this issue on a noticeboard for wider attention? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Other people have been copying UNESO reports to make articles here too. I nominated at least one for deletion until the copy and paster pointed out the copyright notice that permitted it. You could try to find themall and check how unbalanced they are and add the NPOV tags. Otherwise you could sart a talk on the Village Pump somewhere about it.  Some content from these though would be suitable for inclusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Network of African Institutes for Mathematical Sciences


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Network of African Institutes for Mathematical Sciences. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – African Institute for Mathematical Sciences. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at African Institute for Mathematical Sciences. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

World Conference on Science
Hi again Susan. I'm just taking a look at World Conference on Science. It seems to be copied from this UNESCO website, which is not marked as free content. Has UNESCO published this with an appropriate licence elsewhere that I am not finding? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I've been unable to find a free version, I am going to have to nominate this article for deletion. This can always be undone at a later date if the copyright issue is addressed, though it would be better if the content was rewritten rather than being copied from a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of World Conference on Science


A tag has been placed on World Conference on Science requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/overview.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material 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 use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 "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. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Larry, this webpage should be reinstated. There is no copyright violation. The conference was organized for the world's governments and the documents and information are all open access.--89.3.235.176 (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Interested in the next Wiki Science Competition?
Hi, i don't if you missed all the messages I left here and on commons about this event.

I am checking with Ivo Kruusamägi from Wikimedia Estonia the composition of the final jury. We did our best to keep it balanced by continent, gender, field etc but in the end it is still a little bit eurocentric. I mean, it is good they are not from Estonia and Italy, but of course it could have been better. Finding 15 names (and national jury) to help is not easy, in the end I gathered a lot of "maybes" from China and India that might be used next time, including people in national juries that we can promote but so far we got "fifteen shades of white"... I hope that the results will promote science around the globe in any case.

As a woman from New Zealand interested in Africa, would you be interested in joining us to be a juror in the second-level jury? And also in promoting the event? I am sure that next time we will find new additional contacts and I will find your name not at the last minute. Of course, if we can finally get two or three new names from Africa OCeania or Asia, we can promote one of them in the final jury too.

Thank you in advance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Alex, thanks for this invitation. I just saw it. Could you please tell me what being on the jury would entail. I have done quite a lot of science popularization. I could recommend policy experts from Africa and Asia who have a scientific or science policy background, or both, but would prefer to communicate their names via email for reasons of confidentiality. Regards,--89.3.235.176 (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! We are looking for volunteers from all the fields, all the countries and for two different types of juries (and also for some national juries if the local organizers require them, we don't know if they all have their jury ready or need some help)
 * At the international level, the second-level jury makes a selection for countries with no national jury, and the first-level jury takes all the selected pictures (5-25 per countries approximately) and chose the best ones according to the 5 main categories. The workload of the second-level jury is more intense but it is diluted in small portions amongst jurors, and in different sessions. The more jurors there are, the lower is the workload. If we can get enough jurors, we can make two second-level juries for different groups of continents ("Europe and America", "Asia and Africa and Oceania" for example). The second-level jury and the national juries contain also enough wikimedians that can help the reuse and categorization of images.
 * National juries have various compositions and full autonomy but the international juries require some standards, we want to give the clear messages that young researchers will be judged by peers, that is that wikimedia is not a different world but a continuum with the academic world, with people showing curiosity and people working on both. From the practical point of view, some sort of knowledge of the peer-reviewd academic system would be nice. I will create a wikidata item for every juror so we need some reliable IDs (scopus, MathScinet, Loop, IAU profiles, VIAF...), usually only PhD graduated or authors/journalists can have these IDs.
 * The best profiles or the profiles from underrepresented fields should go to the main first-level jury, there is some balance we try to keep.
 * In any case we are here to help them step by step, so the key factor is motivation. A juror is an important way to motivate people to upload, based on 2015 data (in Europe) we know that countries with jurors upload 4 to 10 times more pictures per inhabitant. We don't want to create some gap, especially with Africa.
 * We are starting in two weeks, by that date the core of the jury composition should be assessed but minor modification can occur before the end of the upload phase, that is the beginning of December. the juries start to work at the end of the year or in January. We also welcome replacement for emergency situation, and we will keep the names for the following editions in any case.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Just a brief update. Thanks to all the last-minute effort I got new jurors, five Indians, two Brazilians, on Iraqi guy and maybe a Mexican. Still, no African and I am sorry for that. We are however planning to split the second-level jury indifferent juries for macroareas. It is sad Africa will be merged with other continent, but let's hope for a miracle. Maybe Ghana and Tunisia will give some of their jurors, and some from South Africa will reply to me. In any case, the workload is now reduced a little bit more among jurors.---Alexmar983 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I found your name online and I though of coming here for an update. WSC has started (hashtag #WSC2017 #WikiScience #WikiScience2017) but so far we can't get a banner in countries with no national jury, despite the fact this is not a problem for us. As a result we have huge unbalance with zero upload from Sweden, Germany, Argentina, Pakistan, Iran or France. Now I am doing everything I can to fix that, but I am in China so I can't create momentum on social media. One of the strategies I have adopted is to post on a linkedIn group everyday and send massive emails... more than 600. Today I am also asking everyone I know to make a tweet, I hope we can reach the left-over countries soon. We'll have the same problem with Africa when the upload starts there. if you can make a tweet, that would be useful. thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference mistake
Hello Susan. One of the references you added here, you've given the URL file:///C:/Users/s_schneegans1/Downloads/CBP-7957.pdf. Presumably this is a mistake, since it is a location on your computer, not the internet. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I have deleted the link, since I could not find an alternative, neutral PDF link. The document is easy to find online through a Google search.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realise that I wasn't looking at the most recent version of the page, and that you had subsequently deleted the link. I'm not sure what you mean by a neutral URL link - it just needs to be a URL rather than a file on your PC. The correct URL is http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7957/CBP-7957.pdf. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wired UK article about Brexit Wikpedia page
Hi Susan,

I'm a journalist for Wired UK magazine and I'm writing a piece about the Brexit Wikipedia page. I see that you've been a really active contributor to the entry and would love to talk to you about it. Are you up for being interviewed for the piece?

You can find my email on my Twitter page if so.

Thanks, Matt Mrey445 (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of World Science Day for Peace and Development


The article World Science Day for Peace and Development has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No secondary sources suggesting notability, nothing in the article itself suggests notability. This is not the kind of thing that has any inherent notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of World Science Day for Peace and Development for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Science Day for Peace and Development 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/World Science Day for Peace and Development until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Science and technology in Turkmenistan


The article Science and technology in Turkmenistan has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This is, essentially, an essay topic based on a UNESCO report."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Science and technology in Benin


The article Science and technology in Benin has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This is essentially an essay, based on UNESCO's POV."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of South-South cooperation in science


The article South-South cooperation in science has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This is essentially an essay, based on UNESCO's POV."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Innovation in Malaysia


The article Innovation in Malaysia has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This is essentially an essay, based on UNESCO's POV."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Cordless Larry, I think you are missing the point with your proposed deletions. These articles may not be perfect but they provide the general public with factual information that would otherwise be difficult to obtain. These articles are, thus doing a public service. By deleting them, you would be depriving people of this source of information. You do not question the quality of the material. Rather, you object to the style and to the fact that there is one primary source. However, the UNESCO Science Report itself is a compilation of information from many different sources. I would welcome additions by other contributors to these pages to enrich them. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia, to allow people to enrich articles over time using different sources? Don't delete these 'science and technology'/innovation' pages and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Improve these pages, or allow others to do so. Similarly, you have proposed the deletion of World Science Day for Peace and Development and World Conference on Science. These pages are based on UNESCO's website, as UNESCO is lead UN agency for these days. All the information is in the public domain. I am not contributing any more to Wikipedia, as I found your objections counterproductive and I do not have the time to reinstate the material you propose for deletion. Sometimes, I see your deletion notice too late. Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the material is copied from publications available on the UNESCO website, I don't see how the material is difficult to obtain if it's not on Wikipedia. In a way, it's worse that the UNESCO reports are a compilation of other sources, because when those sources are cited on Wikipedia, UNESCO's role in synthesising them and therefore its POV is obscured. There are further problems beyond those I've identified, which other editors have outlined at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the material in Wikipedia already exists somewhere in a book or other publication. As long as the source is cited and the information is authoritative (this is the case for the UNESCO Science Report, which is written by experts from the country or region under study), that is not problematic. Moreover, this material has been added to fill a gap in the information provided by Wikipedia on science and innovation in developing countries. Is this information of use to Wikipedia users? Given the statistics on readership of these pages, I would say that this is the case. This does not mean that others should not enrich these pages by adding more information and data from other sources. If this has not yet been done, that would seem to confirm that there are not a lot of sources of information (at least in English) on recent trends in research and innovation in these countries. Can we now consider the issue closed? Susan Schneegans (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia articles should be based on published sources, but the issue here is that the exact wording of the UNESCO reports is being imported, with insufficient attribution of the POV (and in some cases documented on the COI noticeboard, with the mandatory paid-contribution disclosure not having been made). It's not really my place to declare the issue closed, since others have contributed to the COI discussion and decisions about article content are taken by consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)