User talk:BillClyne

Hello, I'm Quisqualis. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Make sure that you have cited a source for each assertion of fact.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. I am aware of the need to include references and I do already have several lined up to be incorporated into this proposed new section. I simply wasn't sure about the exact mechanisms by which they should be added, so I thought that I would just upload the text first and then add the references once I had sorted this out. (I am in fact the co-author of a recent CUP book on testing of the plasticity of metals - ISBN-10 1108837891, which includes a chapter on nanoindentation: I use the Endnote referencing system, but of course I'm aware that this couldn't be employed within Wiki.) I will now try to work out how the Wiki referencing system works and then upload the section again. It would be much appreciated if you could keep your eye on this and perhaps help if I don't get the format right. BillClyne (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your references. I've found the instructions to be fairly unambiguous, at least for templated references of the most basic sort. Please exercise extreme caution in citing your own work. It's a sort of "third rail" of editing, and can lead to your having to declare a conflict of interest with respect to your subject.

Think twice as to how much improvement the article receives from the material you self- cite, and whether it's worth it to Wikipedia for you to do so. If the section you are adding pertains primarily to your own and your colleagues' work, the section should be very brief, as Wikipedia is not a venue for any sort of self-promotion. For clarification on citing your work, please post at the Teahouse, where I believe you will receive some sound advice.

PS: In future, always have your sources at hand when making any edits to articles, to avoid problems, and note that URLs in articles and in citations have a "nofollow" attribute. Quisqualis (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, which is very helpful. I completely understand about self-citing and I wasn't planning to do any for this article editing. I'm particularly sensitive to this issue, since, while I've been a University Professor for about 40 years, and I still have Emeritus affiliation, I now work for a start-up company that is concerned with mechanical testing. Nevertheless, the addition I'm proposing to the Nanoindentation article is actually rather important for practical users and, as I say, it is not dependent in any way on my own work or on anything connected with the start-up company. I also understand what you're saying about preparing everything before starting to actually do the editing - prticularly in terms of full information about the references and how they are added. I'll aim to have a go at this additional section once I'm happy about this. I'd certainly appreciate any further monitoring or advice that you're able to offer about this procedure. Incidentally, I could perhaps mention that I'm the Originator of DoITPoMS (www.doitpoms.ac.uk), which is a set of (free) online resources for teaching and learning of Materials Science. Its scope is, of course, far more limited than Wiki, but it's based on a similar model and it's very widely used. I am a great believer in resources that are open and free of any commercial constraints. BillClyne (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to read this; you seem to have grasped the intricacies easily. Happy editing.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all of your help. As you can presumably see, I've had another go at adding this section to the Nanoindentation article. I hope you'll feel that this is now OK, but of course I'd much appreciate any further mentoring! I do hope to author an article or two in due course, but I appreciate that I need to fully understand all of the Wiki procedures and guidelines. It is very interesting to see how the various challenges of this marvellous venture are being met! BillClyne (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, BillClyne! Thank you for your contributions. This is an encyclopedia, so remember that it's a necessity to include references listing reliable websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. Please understand that these sources should verify the information in a fair and accurate manner. However, you must not copy and paste text you find anywhere, except for short quotations, marked as such with quote marks and carefully cited to the source the quote was taken from. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted by others if unreferenced or referenced poorly or if they are copyright violations. See referencing for beginners for more details.

I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page.

Here are some more pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Quisqualis (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi BillClyne! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Indentation Plastometry, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Indentation plastometry has been accepted

Indentation plastometry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your positive and helpful comments. I'm certainly keen to make further contributions of various types.

In fact, I'd like to check something with you. I'm interested in creating a new article concerning DoITPoMS (Dissemination of IT for the Promotion of Materials Science). This is a website (https://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/) that has been around for about 30 years. It's an assembly of resources for the teaching and learning of materials science (at tertiary level). The main component is a set of about 60 Teaching and Learning Packages, each covering a particular topic. They contain many interactive resources. They've all been authored by individual academics. The site is within the "ac" domain and it does carry the University of Cambridge logo. Some admin. support is provided by the Materials Department in Cambridge, and there is some (minor) funding provided via central University structures. However, it's certainly a light touch and the University doesn't really see it as any type of commercial or advertising activity. The contributors have all been (unpaid) volunteers, and there are no charges for using the site. There's also no advertising or commercial involvement of any sort on the site itself. There has been some funding over the years, mainly to support summer schools at which students are paid a bursary to spend a couple of months helping with the coding associated with the resources. These funds have come from various grants etc, but they've been at a relatively low level. There are no permanent employees. It therefore has some similarities to the Wiki model, although obviously at a much lower and more limited level. Nevertheless, it is quite heavily accessed, on a global basis. Both institutions (Universities etc) and individuals (lecturers and students) access the site on a regular basis. In fact, while there is currently no Wiki article about DoITPoMS, there are links to various parts of the site in many Wiki articles (concerned with materials science).

In fact, I was the "Founder" of DoITPoMS and I have held the (unofficial and unpaid) post of Director since its inception. However, my involvement has reduced since I formally retired from the University about 3 years ago. I do still have Emeritus affiliation to the University and, as it happens, I now work full-time for a start-up firm based in Cambridge. I'm therefore still active generally, but, as I say, my direct involvement with DoITPoMS is less than it was. I don't really think that there is an overall Director of DoITPoMS now, although the Department is generally supportive and hopefully it will carry on. While some ongoing support is needed, most of the resources don't date very quickly.

What I have in mind is actually just a short article, explaining the origins, modes of usage etc of the site. I think that this might be helpful, although it would point towards the DoITPoMS site itself for most of the details. My concern is that, at least in some respects, I do have a clear vested interest. While I certainly wouldn't be highlighting my own involvement, and there are no commercial issues involved, it's nevertheless true that I wouldn't be coming at this as an outside observer and there would inevitably be a measure of what might be seen as "self-citation". I would pass it by current University and Department authorities, although I doubt that they would want to have a lot of input. In any event, perhaps you could just let me know whether you think that this would be OK. Of course, I'd be happy to submit a draft to "Articles for creation", rather than just uploading it. BillClyne (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: DoITPoMS (August 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Numberguy6 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DoITPoMS and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Numberguy6 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BillClyne! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Numberguy6 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:DoITPoMS has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:DoITPoMS. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, BillClyne. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:DoITPoMS, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:BillClyne/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:BillClyne/sandbox. Thanks! bonadea contributions talk 18:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DoITPoMS moved to draftspace

Please refer to log comments. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle I helped with the article, actually I stumbled upon the article when tried to create a Draft for the same topic. I proved read the article multiple times, changed the language, changed alot actually and provided reliable references. Can you please help me pin point what I need to change?

DoITPoMS is a very very excellent resource for materials science. You can’t imagine how happy I was to accidentally find this website during my undergraduate and I’m keen on spreading the word. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. We're well aware that there are large numbers of DoITPoMS users, and that the resource is widely accessed and appreciated. Maintaining the activity has become a little harder since my retirement from the University, but there are still a number of people there with an interest in it. Also, although I now work full time for a start-up company in Cambridge, I do still take an interest in educational activities in Materials Science and I keep in touch with people in the Department.

I was pleased to see that you've taken an interest in improving the article. As you may or may not know, when I first submitted it, there was resistance from some editors on the grounds of it being too promotional. I did then revise it, removing certain parts that might have best been retained. I was also assisted by other editors, particularly FuzzyMagma@FuzzyMagma. In any event, hopefully we'll end up with an article that is in good shape. Could you possibly confirm its current state of play? It currently comes up saying that there is only a draft. Of course, I'm happy for it to be edited, but it looks as if the process is still incomplete? BillClyne (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to DoITPoMS, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:BillClyne, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=BillClyne|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this. I'm afraid that I'm simply not sure about these procedures. I can certainly confirm that I have no financial stake of any sort in the DoITPoMS activity. In fact, nobody has, except for a professional programmer, who gets paid a small fee for spending time helping with the annual summer schools. The students also get paid a small bursary, but for them it's just a type of summer placement and of course they're different people every year. The income covering these two things, which actually add up to no more than about £10k pa, comes from various grants etc, as described in the article. For the academics who create the content, including myself, it's an entirely philanthropic activity - or at least we feel that it's a useful service for the Materials community worldwide. Perhaps you could just clarify exactly what I should do in order for this to be formally recorded? Many thanks for your help. Incidentally, while I have found this to be a little frustrating, I'm entirely on board with Wikipedia having these safeguards and requirements. As I say, I'm simply not sure how to conform to them.@fuzzymagma@snoozyturtle BillClyne (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grantchester Woodland Railway (December 6)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

We'll need significant coverage in multiple independent sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Grantchester Woodland Railway and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

qcne (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grantchester Woodland Railway (December 7)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Grantchester Woodland Railway and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grantchester Woodland Railway (December 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

None of the sources cited contribute towards notability per WP:GNG.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Grantchester Woodland Railway and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]