User talk:Metalhorn1

Metalhorn1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Metalhorn1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

18:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sean Young PhD.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Sean Young PhD.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sean Young (psychologist) (February 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sean Young (psychologist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sean Young (psychologist) has been accepted

Sean Young (psychologist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: University of California, Institute for Prediction Technology (February 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment they left was:

Most of the references here are to non-UCIPT projects, since the institute is probably still too young have many results. Prior work by researchers does not belong in this article. This institute started in 2015, and you are citing studies from 2007 and 2008. Cite #10 is BY Sean Young (please include authors in cites), and therefore cannot be used. Remove references that are not ABOUT the institute. Its own research is not a secondary source, btw. You're looking for more articles like the Economic Times (#16 here).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:University of California, Institute for Prediction Technology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest? Paid Editing?

Hello, Metalhorn1. 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. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or 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 familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Based on your edits (all related to Prof. Young) and the fact that you have uploaded the same photo twice claiming it to be "own work" now (it's a professional photo - are you a professional photographer?) I'm assuming that you either 1) are Prof. Young 2) or work for Prof. Young. In such a case, you must make a declaration of conflict of interest. In particular you must state whether you are being compensated for the work on the pages. LaMona (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: Yes, I am a professional photographer (http://www.lynwoodlord.com/). There's no deception involved with the Sean Young, PhD, photo, so again, I request that it not be deleted. The initial photo was removed simply to remove any indication of impropriety (even though that is also my own work; I was simply not familiar with the submission process).

Second, I am an employee of UCLA, but not directly for Dr. Young. The university employs 40,000+ people, and I work with a great number of public health officials, including Dr. Young. I was made aware of the lack of a Wikipedia presence for his centers, and volunteered to create the entries on my own time. I will supply the COI for UCLA in my revision, but otherwise feel there is nothing out of line with my entries. (I have written them in a neutral tone and used widely available sourcing.) I will amend the sourcing in the University of California, Institute for Prediction Technology entry to include more external media citations. However, as you point out, the center is quite young. It does employ several very notable computer scientists, including a Guggenheim "genius award" winner (Dr. James H. Fowler), so I feel that it more than meets the criterion for notability. Metalhorn1 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: University of California, Institute for Prediction Technology has been accepted

University of California, Institute for Prediction Technology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.