Talk:Electronic lab notebook/Archives/2012

Table

What this article needs most is a list or table of electronic lab notebook software, ideally building in time to a comparison of capabilities similar to that available for email software, web browsers etc (q.v.). Sangwine (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Links

More links to ELNs are desirable since people come here to look for them. Please remove the 'no more links' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoddet (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

By the rules of Wikipedia, this site is not a link repository. It is also non-commercial. If you want to have product links or links to Blogs, please look elsewhere. Links will be deleted. Spamslayer2000 (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in line with Spamslayer on thishere. At least 2 - 3 links as examples, and for orientation are needed in my opinion. Rajanala83 (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The guideline on external links is at WP:EL. It is no use trying to change the rules here, if you want to do that WP:VPP is a good place to start. SpinningSpark 10:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pharmacuetical industry

It seems like half of this article belongs in an article on software validation in the pharmaceutical industry. Sure, there is no question that anybody who uses an ELN in this industry needs to do all the stuff in that paragraph, but the same would apply to an MES or ERP or LIMS or any other system that manages data used for regulated purposes. An article on ELN should talk about ELN. Rich0 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Messing with this page seems to be an obsession with the kid from U of CA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I know him, he'll be happy you called him a kid. But, for those of you that don't think he knows what he's talking about - he does. Just my opinion, I'm a professor here in Washington D.C.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.44.174 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

More links

Changed the first external link that previously had nothing useful at all. old link was: http:// e-lab-book.com/ (May also be an add). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invasifspecies (talk • contribs) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not an ad? The site sells nothing? Plus it does have useful info. It has a guide to a free ELN. The link you added is just a bunch of links (most of which don't work anymore). Some are good though. Wikipedia is such an angry place, why are there so many people suppressing information? I thought the idea was to have open information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.86.85 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, it's becoming a bit more clear. This guy who is trying to get rid of the website with information on using your computer as a FREE ELN, has 'contributed' to wikipedia in one other way. That is to write a page on Recentris - a company that sells their ELN solution. Obviously a people using free ELNs doesn't help their business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.86.85 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am affiliated with rescentris, a commercial ELN company, and yes, that is why I am interested in this entry. However, this has nothing to do with why I dislike the self-serving blogspam link posted constantly by 128.200.86.85. The site is not useful, neutral or independent, per wikipedia guidelines. I have nothing against that particular free lab notebook, OR free lab notebooks in general OR any other notebook for that matter, and I can easily prove it. If 128.200.86.85 would like to edit his website so that it is actually neutral, objective, useful, contains less google ads, looks less like it was made by middle school kids, and contains either a comprehensive list of all ELN products (free or otherwise) presented objectively and equally, perhaps in table form, OR if it contains no specific ELNS at all, then I would have no problem with it. Go ahead. I challenge you. I believe competition is a good thing and I have no problem having a product I favor listed next to any and all similar products. There is room for everyone in the market and we all have our niche. However wikipedia is not the right place for links that specifically redirect people to a single product from a page that deals with a general product class. That is an obvious abuse of the wiki concept. Someone here previously suggested a table of all known ELNs (commercial and free) on the actual entry page - I love that idea. I think it would be useful to visitors, and I would be more than happy to see elab notebook on that list. The Cornell website looked promising too since it is independently maintained, but unfortunately, as 128.200.86.85 so indignantly pointed out, many of its links are now dead. Let's not play games here, we all know that your current link is in fact an add for a product regardless of whether or not that product is free. We all know you are using wikipedia to direct traffic to this dot com site. I neither know nor care about the specifics of your commercial venture, but please, give us some credit. You are using wikipedia for some kind of personal gain, and that is why you watch this entry like a hawk and constantly place your link at the top of the external links list regardless of how many times it is removed by editors (not just me) and regardless of how blatantly NOT neutral a site called "elab notebook.com" obviously is. My guess is that you will probably continue to do so until you are blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invasifspecies (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, have you read the site? I like the design (maybe I have middle school tastes?). Anyway, I really don't get why wikipedia has so many fanatics. I don't get anything from the website - in fact it costs me money for the website - it's a hobby. The google ads make less than 50 cents a month and hosting the site costs like 4 dollars? You guys are weird? What is so bad about that site? Why do I have to redisgn it per your wishes? I added all the links you wanted from the cornell page. Seriously, what is up with you people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.86.85 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - Hey, I'm a graduate student, future neruoscience researcher. I'm a user of ELNs, not a developer or seller. I have no interest in making money off ELNs. I have no interest in a war with you either. I can tell you one thing, Recentris is not getting a good name in my book right now. Obviously, your retort will be that you don't care and then you can denegrate my webpage making ability - but hey, I'm a researcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.86.85 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think I am liking you more and more and enjoying the fact that you made me smile today. Thanks for adding more links to your page. Although I can't seem to see them I'm sure they are probably on there somewhere if you say they are. Maybe I need the magical twirling VR headset to be able to see them. Thanks also for moving your link on the lab notebook entry to the end of the list. I'm not sure that it needs the warning though. As you say, one reader's middle school style is another's high art. I still don't understand why you hover around here much if your interest is just as a hobby, but whatever. Good luck with your research. I spent years as a researcher myself. I hope you change your mind about Rescentris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invasifspecies (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for lightening up on me. I don't really hang around here, but half my US hits are from wikipedia, so I can tell when I've been cut :). I want more discussion and talk about ELNs (so they get more accepted and easier to use - like your Recentris CERF). Heck, to use my makeshift ELN (no way in heck I could get a PI to spring for a pay ELN at first), just to use what I'm using takes a big effort at first - then they see all the benefits. So I guess my real motive behind the site and the link here (being a tech nerd) is to just be allowed to use new technology to make the research process more efficient. Anyway, thanks for the input on the website design (I just redesigned it, I liked it at first, but it does kind of look cheesey - but the mood of the site is purposefully a bit cheesey). I will try to get the links section more visable to the casual site visitor).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.86.85 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job grad student. You have made this a completely useless wikipedia page. You blast those with "big egos" but really, how can they big any bigger than yours? You are on here for one purpose only - to get people to your page to increase whatever personal objective you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.222.157 (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's crazy, wikipedia is such a hostile place. How am I making the page totally useless? What are you doing for the page? I'm adding a link to a site with all the information and links I have on ELNs - the only up to date site by the way, and the site sells nothing. --"blast those with 'big egos'" I don't remember blasting anyone and saying they have big egos? I was saying some people are selling or work for companies that sell ELNs (which is fine, I like ELNs) and I don't think they should be deleting links to sites with information on all ELNs (including free ones). That's unethical. 128.200.86.107 (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Search

Linking to a Google search? Come on, people.Lots42 (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So let's work on the article:

- -why does it say there are two categories of ELNs? Wher did that information or idea come from? + Messing with this page seems to be an obsession with the kid from U of CA

- -why does it act like ELNs have to be FDA certified? In business (food and drug companies) this may be true, but in other situations it just means overkill - like having three people sign a paper lab notebook at the end of each day (maybe important in some situations, but overkill). + I know him, he'll be happy you called him a kid. But, for those of you that don't think he knows what he's talking about - he does. Just my opinion, I'm a professor here in Washington D.C..

- -let's get rid of ELNs "are a fairly new technology" and change it to "a not widely used technology".169.234.115.112 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How can we get some changes to stick around here?

What's the point of discussing changes on this talk page before editing, if nobody else chimes in!? Because nobody knows much about ELNs (especially wikieditors). So the logical thing to do if there's a limited number of ELN knowledgable people is to just edit the page, but then if you just change the page, then wikieditors delete any changes. Seriously wikipedia, is super dysfunctional. How is it we can improve the page? Heck people have asked in the past for more links - but that apparently has been nixed. 169.234.115.112 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ground rules

A lot of the editors here seem to be inexperienced on Wikipedia. Just want to point out a few things about the way things work here.

Civility

Civility is a policy of the site. Please follow it at all times. Phrases like "blast those with big egos" and "you have made this a totally useless page" are not acceptable. Please concentrate on improving the article, not insulting each other.

Refactoring

It is not acceptable to delete, edit or refactor other peoples comments. The talk page must remain a record of what was said, whether it is right or wrong. There are certain very limited exceptions to this. If you want to delete your own comment after someone else has replied to it, then you should strike it out rather than deleting.

Signing

All posts should be signed with four tildes like so ~~~~. No one seems to be doing that with few exceptions. Please also indent your comment with a colon : when replying in a thread. A reply to a reply should be indented with two colons etc.

External links

There is a Wikipedia guideline on external links which is quite restrictive. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide links to the rest of the internet. Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia. An acceptable use of an external link would be in an article about a work of art where an image of the work cannot be shown for copyright reasons. It is unacceptable to simply link to other sites that have articles about the subject, we should be writing our own articles, not linking to other peoples.

SpinningSpark 21:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)