User talk:Siphon06

 Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Siphon06! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or me personally when you need help. Please remember to sign and date your finished comments when participating in discussions. The signature icon above the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy, Civility, and the Terms of Use policies while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You do not need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thorcon
Thanks for creating the resource on Thorcon. We will probably want to organize this as a subpage of a resource to be created on Nuclear power, amazingly, we don't have one yet. I would think that your page would become Nuclear power/Thorium/Thorcon. What do you think?

Meanwhile, I've seen the speedy deletion of Thorcon on Wikipedia, which was probably improperly not undone, given that a regular user protested it. But the user did not protest through regular process, by a note to the deleting admin, or, failing that, on w:WP:DRV. If you want advice on Wikipedia, email me. You may also need advice on image licensing and how to proceed. I don't see that anyone has been helping you, tsk, tsk. Common for Wikipedia. It is a jungle, a zoo. You need a guide, I suspect.

Meanwhile, first things first. If you have a conflict of interest, and specifically, if you are an employee of, contracted to, or an investor in Thorcon or the parent company, please disclose your conflict, WikiMedia Foundation policy requires that. Be aware that these things are sometimes investigated. Other conflicts of interest are possible than those I listed. When in doubt, disclose. On Wikiversity, we don't care about conflict of interest except that it be disclosed and that editors with a conflict of interest be careful about conflict with others. It is unlikely to be a problem. Because of how we organize material here, we allow original research, etc., we handle controversy inclusively rather than exclusively, content conflict is rare. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer for assistance. I have no conflict of interest in that I am not financially tied to Thorcon. I know the website owner, Jack Devanney, and offered to build encyclopedic articles. However I am an unpaid and incidental engineering advisor for the Thorcon design team.

Still working on more refs, and inline refs, it is not just the company website though, also World Nuclear press release and presentations, will add exec summary info later.

What's the best way to get the article published on Wikipedia?Siphon06 (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

the following copied from User talk:Abd --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. The article was rejected on Wikipedia on copyright grounds, which is odd since all the website, exec summary etc is share for all/commons license.

I do need help with this. The files uploaded did have the share for all tags and everything, apparently the issue was the website that had CC-BY-ND copyright on it even though the website owner, Jack Devanney, explicitly stated that it is all freely publicible and free for all/commons type license (it is even open source project itself). Right now nothing seems to happen to the draft page on Wikipedia even though it still stays its in review.Siphon06 (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel completely free to build educational resources here. I consider what you disclosed above to indicate a weak conflict of interest. I would consider you an expert, and experts often have some kind of conflict of interest. We are *very* different from Wikipedia. We do have a neutrality policy, and you will see that if site admin here, or any user, sees a neutrality problem, that we can handle it, deletion is usually not needed, just proper framing. If any problems arise, keep calm, ask for help, don't attempt to make things go the way you think they "should," COI or SPA (Single Purpose Account) editors often get into trouble. No sign of that so far. Just letting you know what can happen.


 * "Copyright grounds" are basis for speedy deletion. But I don't see that the issue was properly confronted on Wikipedia. If article content was copied from the web site, that will create a permissions issue, and these are resolved for deletion, by default. Basically, the prior publication indicates ownership, and then proof of permission will be required. You stated that the "owner ... explicitly stated," something, but you did not point to that or prove it. If that's on the site, then link to it. If it was private, to you, that's useless. What will have to happen is that the owner explicitly gives permission through the w:WP:OTRS system. If the copyright owner uploads files to Commons, that is usually easiest. With prior publication, OTRS will still be involved. It can get complicated and I'm not expert, only roughly familiar. I know the problems can be resolved. See also Commons:OTRS.


 * If you are going to quote the website, do so with specific attribution and link. Do not just copy text! At this point, we can work together to make the text neutral, if you like, but it is also possible to have a subpage that is purely your opinion -- or the company's opinion. It's all about how it's framed. My hope is that you will help us build resources on nuclear power in general.


 * As a single-purpose account on Wikipedia (your interests there have been narrow, for the most part), get help from more experienced users. There was a user who protested the deletion. The deletion reason was not "copyright," it was "promotion." If you and that user are not familiar with deletion process, again, email me. I am banned on Wikipedia, so I must be careful, and so must anyone I advise. Disclosure: I have, in the past, been paid to advise persons or companies on handling Wikipedia issues. I have never edited Wikipedia or any WMF site for hire (which would, if not disclosed, be a violation of the Terms of Service.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning about Wikipedia
This is about Wikipedia, not here. Here, you may make mistakes and we consider it part of the educational process. I have moved the Thorcon resource to Nuclear power/Thorium/Thorcon. However, I also blanked the page, placing a link to the content in page history. Wikiversity does not ordinarily host copies of Wikipedia articles. However, the topic may be studied. As part of study, if the Wikipedia article is deleted, which could still happen, the content is now here in History. Otherwise, I would have requested that the page be deleted.

I was cleaning up my user talk page, preparing to archive, and saw the old discussion. Hence, before archiving it, I decided to handle the issues.

Why a warning about Wikipedia? Understand that I'm banned there. This is only for your information. This is not an attack on you. It is very unlikely to be used against you. Wikipedians are unlikely to even see this, though it's not impossible.

User talk/Siphon06 has a number of red flags, warnings about license problems or copyvio. Ignoring older warnings or notices, this started January 15, and continued until February 22. You did not respond to any of these, until one response to a live issue, on February 20. FYI, two of the users warning you are administrators, a high level of privileged attention. Those admins, having edited your User talk page, will see, in their watchlist (or by email notification), all edits to your talk page, and if they notice a lot of warning traffic, they will pay more attention and may very specifically warn of possible block, and block. That is, they will warn if you are lucky. Sometimes they just block.

It appears that the Thorcon article was created by w:User:Tim333. See:, It was deleted January 11, by admin Bbb23, G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). You created the Draft:Thorcon article, January 9. It appears from an admin review, cited below, that the content was much more extensive than the earlier article. Tim333 complained about the deletion on w:Talk:Thorcon but actually did nothing (the notice to him pointed out what to do if Tim333 disagreed with the deletion, but Tim just complained on the talk page. Common. If you plan on doing more Wikipedia editing, become familiar with procedures. Complaints about rude administrators or stupid bots go nowhere, but impress Wikipedians with the cluelessness of the writer.)

February 1, even with an AfC rejection, you recreated Thorcon, which would show up on Bbb23's watchlist. For recreating a deleted page, you could have been warned and/or blocked. The proper procedure is to request undeletion, first from the deleting admin, and then, if you were not satisfied, from w:Wikipedia:Deletion review.

My guess is that you were not aware of this discussion.

So, you revert warred over the placement of a copyright review template:

19:10, 13 February 2015‎, 08:48, 17 February 2015‎, 17:11, 17 February 2015‎. The last had this summary:


 * (Issue has been resolved by license change at www.thorconpower.com to SA license. illegitimately blanking pages (after resolution) is considered vandalism per Wikipedia policy. I will consider reporting you if blanking again.)

So, a user with 453 contributions to enwiki, 469 globally, visible as a single-purpose account, is telling a user with 26,714 contributions to enwiki, 27,878 total, about Wikipedia policy. The user is an OTRS member, which spells "copyright and license expert," and is trusted to make decisions with legal implications. How likely is it that your understanding of policy is correct?

You believed the issue had been resolved. If you are not to find yourself blocked, you need to understand how process works. It's not about being right, it's about procedure. You weren't right, anyway.

The notice you were removing reads: Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent. The user was an OTRS agent, but would probably recuse as having tagged the page. Bbb23, an administrator, as mentioned above, reverted you. The issue was resolved in your opinion. If it was really resolved, the tag would be removed by the user who placed it, or as described. Wikipedia operates on consensus, or rough consensus. It does not operate based on users deciding "I'm right." Even if they are right. If you are actually right, it's highly likely someone else will agree with you.

As the page creator, you'd be considered biased anyway, but as a friend of a principal at Thorcon, much more so. You were right in the sense that the permission issue had indeed been addressed, but not right to revert war, and not right to threaten an established user with being "reported." Had you actually reported the user, you would probably have been promptly blocked.

You were, in fact, warned. You stopped. You were "surprised," but your surprise shows just how little you understood about Wikipedia process. There are almost five million articles in the English Wikipedia alone. It takes time to review, 20 seconds, your idea, would not be enough. There are considerations that will not even occur to you. This was not OTRS reviewed, because w:WP:OTRS backlog is

You were not paying attention, but you were sure you were right. That's a formula for getting blocked on Wikipedia. If you would like more advice on how to survive on Wikipedia, having a strong interest in a topic, or if you have any specific questions, ask.

Basic wiki survival rule: if warned, if conflict appears, stop. Discuss. Do not barge ahead, continuing to do what you were warned not to do. Even if you believe you are right. To move outside this, into exceptions, first gain some years of experience, high edit count, etc, and make sure you have community support. Otherwise, before then, get the help of experienced users, don't try it on your own. Good luck.

Feb 13, you revealed your relationship with Thorcon.. You began that section with the comment, "This article has been under repeated attack for suspected copyright infringement." That thinking of ordinary Wikipedia process as "attack" is that of a naive SPA, who does not realize that the tagging of the article is setting up a review process that will resolve the issue. You were actually incorrect about the license for the source material. Because, when the problem was pointed out specifically, it was fixed, the page was not deleted. If it had not been fixed before deletion, then, the page could have been undeleted later. However, the admin whose discussion I linked above opined that the article would not be eligible for speedy deletion (in which case the remedy would have been to blank alleged copyvio text.) The OTRS member instead used the investigation tag, an available choice. Consider this: it worked. That issue is, in fact, resolved, completely, forever.

When you were then informed about special rules for COI editors, you protested that you did not have a conflict of interest. and. It is apparent that you had a naive idea of what COI is, and did not read the guideline, w:WP:COI.

SPAs often think that something must be fixed immediately. That doesn't work with Wikipedia, it leads to revert warring and disruption. And that is why Wikipedians mistrust COI editors and SPAs. They readily fall into the idea that this article is terribly important. They are not there to build an encyclopedia, but only to manage coverage of their special topic.

The Wikipedian approach has many flaws, but it is also better designed than many naive editors think. If you ever want to improve the process, instead of just carping about it, you will need to study it. Meanwhile, Wikiversity is completely open to you. You may make mistakes here the same as on Wikipedia, but, you will find, we will work with you, because our product is education, not just content. You are our most important product.

Two more comments: both will tend to make you appear a non-Wikpiedian to Wikipedians.


 * When the license was fixed, you wrote about your email with the owner. That was actually irrelevant. (If email with a copyright owner is necessary, it's done through OTRS, which will verify it.) What was relevant was the change in displayed site license. So you suggested looking at it. You did not provide a link, just the name of the site, and you did not state where to look on the page. Yes, it's only a little more work to copy the URL into my browser, and most would know to look at the bottom. However, little touches, that consider making it very convenient for a reader or verifier, are the mark of an experience user.


 * You frequently make many edits when one could do. These have several effects. They fill up Recent changes, creating much more traffic for Recent Changes Patrollers to review. And they make you look like a noob, compounded by the lack of edit summary, other than a section default. See . Extend the number of edits displayed to see earlier edits to that same page. I can take one look at your contributions and see "inexperienced user."

You stopped almost all editing after being warned about COI, there are just the IMSR edits. Terrible name for an article, by the way. Not my problem. It should be, my opinion, Integrated molten salt reactor, or just a section of Molten salt reactor. The IMSR article is not even linked from the Molten salt article. There is no redirect from the actual name to the acronym. Wikipedia is full of little things like this to fix, if you want to work there.

Ah. I see you created that article. From a brief glance, it will fail notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. It's about the sources. Beyond the scope of my comments here, at this point. Again, not my business. I only came here to advise you about Wikipedia, how to survive what can sometimes be a brutal environment. You were lucky. The administrators and editors you have encountered were actually helpful. You have not actually seen the other side.

March 21, the page was nominated for deletion; the discussion was extended twice (unusual). You did not comment in the discussion. You could have, though because of the possible COI, you would properly disclose it, and be very careful. The result, April 13, was "no consensus," which means that the page may easily be renominated. However, a user did observe that the page now satisfied w:WP:GNG. If that is solid, the page will survive. I have not checked. We don't care, here on Wikiversity. Notability is not necessary. Neutrality is, but we handle neutrality by organization and adding balancing material or at least space for it, not by deletion. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

more on Thorcon
The resource was just tagged for proposed deletion, because of no educational content. I removed the tag, but the idea of blanking the page like that was to encourage you to develop a resource on Thorcon (and to prevent deletion for a different reason: copy of a Wikipedia article). You can do so with high freedom;W Wikiversity does not like to host encyclopedia articles, but deep educational resources, that can be written without the restrictions that are normal for Wikipedia, i.e., for an encyclopedia.

I highly recommend that you enable email; it would allow you to receive notices of any changes to pages on your watchlist, if you set it up that way, and also notices of comments on your Talk page. The same is true for Commons. Were you aware of the pending deletions on Commons? With email enable there you would have been immediately notified. If there was permission for those files that were deleted, it is possible to establish that. Do not just upload the files again, and having many deleted uploads can lead to a block on Commons. Rather, do it carefully and by the book, and ask if you don't know. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I consider the Wikipedia article as being at high risk of being deleted. It was not deleted because there was not enough participation in the AfD discussion. There is opinion that the article had sufficient source. I'm not confident of that, I've seen articles deleted that had much more. But a decent Wikiversity resource will not be deleted. We do not require notability. We do require neutrality, but you can state opinions if they are attributed and if others are allowed to add balancing information. Quite simply, we are not Wikipedia. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)