User talk:Nabeth

AtGentive Project

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of AtGentive Project, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.atgentive.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of AtGentive Project

A tag has been placed on AtGentive Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. 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 as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —— Ryan • t | c 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of AtGentive Project

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as AtGentive Project, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice my comments on the article talk page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

Yours is a perfectly reasonable question. The problem is that by and large, we discourage the addition of external links to articles. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a search engine; if you want additional links about a topic, you would use the search engine of your choice. Under our guidelines for external links, the "boring" official page is the one permitted link that is allowed even if the official page is biased and promotional as all get-out. Further external links, especially to unfiltered venues such as blogs and the like, are strongly discouraged. One of the more boring tasks of editors doing clean-up on articles is the removal of what we disparage as "linkfarms" unless they are reliable sources of valuable, verifiable additional information. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is a major problem here

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article AtGentive Project, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Answer: I will stop now updating about this project. However what I have written can certainely not be considered as an article about yourself, althought I acknowledge I have been largely involved in it, but something in which 8 different organisations have been involved. As I indicated however, I will stop adding myself further information (and expecting that others will add information if neccessary). Nabeth (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and academe

The problem is that Wikipedia is not only not welcoming to, but actively rejects, original research and synthesis. We have deliberately self-limited this particular project to a role as an accumulator and compiler: a secondary, tertiary or even quaternary source. Thus, we are not going to be a good place for contributions on the true cutting edge of any kind of advancement of knowledge. Once this new knowledge is assimilate into the broader memesphere (if I may coin a neologism), then an article may be crafted, citing proper peer-reviewed reliable sources. I hope this somewhat addresses your concerns. (Sorry to give you such short shrift, but I'm off to a major literary conference in about 57 minutes. Yahoo! It's WisCon weekend!) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer that I will elaborate soon related to the NoE FIDIS. The objective of a NoE is not to conduce original research and synthesis, but rather to facilitate the networking of a group of expert. It includes both inventories of the state of the situation (and not research) in a domain (something that could typically flows in an encyclopedia), and well as some prospective work and vision (something that is indeed outside the scope of an encyclodepia). Therefore the idea of the FIDIS in Wikipedia initiative, if it goes throught, is to have the FIDIS to contribute to a better conceptualisation of the concept of Identity (and I am not mean by this research results). Thierry Nabeth (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason why page was deleted

• 08:39, June 14, 2008 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "AtGentive Project" ‎ Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Non-notable project.

A user (Phlegm Rooster) tagged the article with the prod tag, which proposes deletion. If the tag is not challenged within 5 days, the article is subject to deletion at any time. Since you were not informed with a courtesy notification, I would support a restoration with a caveat to you that someone will inevitably take it to WP:AFD. This may be beneficial for your understanding of Wikipedia's requirements, so that the notability of the project can be evaluated through a community consensus, giving you a clearer picture of why users do not feel that the project is a suitable article subject under WP:Notability. I will comment to the user who nominated for PROD as to the importance of extending a courtesy notification. You should have a chance to respond to all proposals for deletion, IMHO. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I indeed did not received any notification. Note: I try also now to restrict myself changing to many things in Wikipedia in order not to expose myself to deletion. Concerning the reason that was advanced (Non-notable project). Well, a 2 years, more than 2 millions dollars projects, 8 partners, that advanced the work on the design of cognitive systems! What more do you want to call it notable? Besides, later, do I have to monitor every week what will happen in this page for the next years? I am really being confuse also when trying to understand the rational of Phlegm Rooster since the page Phlegm Rooster does not inform me a lot on what ground this selection are made (I mean a minimum, such as knowledge of the domain of Cognition, or knowledge categorisation, or somethingelse).
  • I have a couple of exchange of emails with CobaltBlueTony™talk about this who helped to clarify what happened to my page (thank you Cobaltbluetony). To my opinion, this deletion was not legitimate, and was not executed in a proper way (wrong reason and no notification that would have allow me to defend myself). However, I do not want to spend additional time on this issue. thierry. Nabeth (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Business Simulation Games

Thank you for your edits to the business simulation games article. However, as it clearly states at the top of the page that the article is about the video game genre, and not about business simulations, as you may find in business schools, etc, I have reverted them. Please do feel free to add relevant and constructive edits in the future. Thanks again Mycroft (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for editing out your CR edit without further explanation - it's my belief that the CR is unnecessary, but have left a message in the talk page to await other people's views, and to seek consensus. Thank you for your concern Mycroft (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nabeth, after your frankly unnecessarily aggressive message on my talk page, I suggest you look at every other wiki article with a similar start line - the house style is not to have an extra line break. I was not removing the disambiguation, just the line break. Mycroft (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not aggressive. I find the current version of disambiguiting to introduce a biais. I just suggested a correction to clarify this. (I suggest you look at every other wiki article with a similar start line) Ok the line break is maybe not the most appropriate, but nor is the current version. Can you suggest another chnage so that the reference to other 'business simulation games' do not happen at the end of the line. Thanks. Nabeth (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were not being aggressive I apologise. For now, see Football, and the way the disambiguation is handled. Hopefully this will makes things clearer - this isn't my own view I'm enforcing, just the current house style. To reach a consensus, though, and to let you have your say (as previously stated) I have asked for views on the talk page. With respect to your most recent edit, the other references are always at the end of the line. As I said, though, do feel free to bring it up on the talk page. Mycroft (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's to doing wiki-ing properly! Thanks for your constructive feedback, etc - I'm sure we'll reach a consensus over the coming days that will allow us to move forward with a clear, on topic article Mycroft (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Books by INSEAD faculty section

Quote: This section is informative since it helps to understand the research conducted at INSEAD. --Nabeth (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This just seems like the reintroduction of material by some authors who don't on their own warrant bio-articles. What criteria are going to be used to justify what books are inserted into a "some" books criteria section? Unless you can define what "some" are, its just spam or cruft. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the answer in the Talk:INSEAD‎ page. Regards. --Nabeth (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear trident. INSEAD is an academic institution, and therefore it is just useful to make reader to understand the kind of work and expertise that is conducted by faculties. The section is therefore not about the people themselves, but it agregate some of the work that is being done. Just saying that INSEAD is good at this or that would be subject to caution. Indicatoing some of the books that were authored by some people helps to get an impression of what is really being done. Best regards. Note that the number of faculty / books mentionned remained limited and to my opinion not excessive. Best regards.--Nabeth (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about INSEAD, its about the criteria used for what books are included in that section and why? What criteria are "some" books going to be included or not, which was my original question? Can you also in your reply state your relationship to INSEAD, and whether you are one of the authors listed? Personally, I am an MBA graduate but not from INSEAD. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

>> What criteria are "some" books going to be included or not: Just some of the key books that are well representative of INSEAD. But as indicated this is not expected to be a complete list of INSEAD book. An example: Blue Ocean Strategy has been written at INSEAD, and has attracted the attention of the management world. The book of Minzberg is a classic. etc. I personally only added a couple of books: From Bruce Kogut and Yves Doz. They are reknown academics worldwide, and would deserve a page on their own (but I do not have the time right now).

>> Can you also in your reply state your relationship to INSEAD. Look at my profile page user:Nabeth. I am a researcher at INSEAD. My work is only doing research (knowledge management, conceptualisation, identity), and I have nothing to do with the communication department of INSEAD. My contribution he in Wikipedia is to make more informative.

>> whether you are one of the authors listed?. Nope (see my profile page).

>> Personally, I am an MBA graduate but not from INSEAD. I also have a MBA, but not from INSEAD. However, I have a MS in artificial intelligence, and 20 years of experience in the domain.

To finish, I wanted to indicate as sometone who has been working in the academic word that the function of Business Shools and University is not only to develiver education, but also to create knowledge. This is this latest dimension I wanted to make more visible. My apologise if I am not right at the first time, but contribution in Wikipedia is funded on continuous improvement, and studies have demonstrated (Huberman if I remember) that the number of edit and the number of authors is correlated with the quality of the page. Best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's the two fold problem (1) any wikipedia editor could accuse you of bias under Wiki's rules, as you have a vested interest in the subject of INSEAD. They could therefore instantly undo any of your edits on the INSEAD article. (2) if the criteria can not be defined as to what is included in the section, then - its just becomes an information dump, and could be removed. I suggest as a way forward that what we might do is create a list based in a new article (links back to main INSEAD article), and define some criteria around what is/is not included, eg: books created by INSEAD faculty while they were at INSEAD. Give me your thoughts. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we go to the discussion page of Talk:INSEAD to discuss about this? Thanks. --Nabeth (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Logo

The logo is not the logo of the college. That removal is just part of the drastic cleaning job that would be necessary to make this article acceptable by our standards. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to reproduce most of the contents of the college catalog; and the article is replete with club descriptions, peacock words, and other irrelevant fluff. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Point taken. Alumni associations however have a life outside the shool, and are often governed in an independant way. In that case they could belong to a separate page. But now I am reluctant to do anything in fear that other things being destroyed. Also I do not want to enter into the suspition of conflict of interest. My motive here was to help to improve the page and to make it more informative. The better is now that I stop. Best regards, --Nabeth (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussions Points communs et critères sur les sites web en général

Bonjour, Nabeth you've contributed to keep in the Wiki the article Pointscommuns, whose existence is already discussed for his promotionnal tone, would you mind to give us your point of view.Discussion:Pointscommuns Moreover, I've seen that your quite interested in the terms of reliabilty of site web, I've already discussed on rrecommandation for Webmasters with a few wikipedian, unfortenatelly with no success. I hope 'seeing' you on my discussion page

Au cas où mon anglais serait détestable( mais ça m'a fait très plaisir d'essayer):

vous avez contribué au maintien de l'article points communs qui est encore soumis à discussion pour son caractère promotionnel, auriez vous la gentillesse de nous dire ce que vous en pensez?

Discussion:Pointscommuns De plus j'ai vu que vous vous intéressez de près aux sites web, j'avais lancé une discussion sur les recommandations à l'usage des webmasters, sans succès Merci d'avance de votre participation Puceronpoilu (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this message should hae been writen instead in the French wikipedia. Bug somewhere? --Nabeth (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits made to Leadership

Hi, I am not sure what you were trying to do to Leadership, but I reverted your edits. You had removed the headers from a few sections, and replaced them with ;. This made it un-readable. It could also be taken as vandalism, which I don't think it was, I think it may have just been a mistake. Just try to be more careful in the future. Thanks. --Navy blue84 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not an error and it was not vandalism. Please look at the talk page of Leadership. Thanks. --Nabeth (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merci d'avoir contribué à l'amélioration

de Learning by teaching--Jeanpol (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lifestreaming

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Great job on that article. It really looks great! Shanman7 23:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Identity fraud

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Identity fraud. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identity fraud. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

In your edit summaries, please don't change any of the text between the /* and */ symbols, as that's only for section titles. Your comment should go after the final */ symbol at the end. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. It is even more conveniant now. --Nabeth (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See also section on Working memory

Could you please cease and desist with your adding of already marked items to the article's see-also? Bloat and stuffing is completely unnecessary and avoidable. I've reverted you on this same thing before. This is a very simple affair that needn't be belabored ad nauseam. In fact, I've noticed that this is your normative behavior as witnessed in your contribs to other articles. Even if this is the first notice someone has made on this matter, it isn't exactly unwritten in the hallowed policies of WP. Anyway, I'm going to change your additions to the section again.—αrgumziω ϝ 22:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please discuss this in Wikipedia_talk:Layout? I really have just discovered about this rule and I have added a suggestion on this page. Note: I would like to point to your attention that you tone is patronising, and I would kindly ask you to change this. As I indicated, I did not notice your first reversal of my edit. And my intention was not to annoy other people, but to faciliate the navigation. I acted in good fate. Best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, pardon. I have noticed your raising the issue as indicated herein.—αrgumziω ϝ 22:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

About EditiX page (from list of xml editors list)

Hello Thierry,

Is it possible to have your opinion about keeping or not Editix xml editor in the XML Editors list ? Thank you.

Proposed deletion of Dave Snowden

The article Dave Snowden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP unsourced since its creation in February 2007

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Identity in the Information Society

The article Identity in the Information Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

New journal, not indexed anywhere yet. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of INSEAD alumni

The article List of INSEAD alumni has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Some of these people are notable, but the association with the school is not

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. — Racconish^Tk 05:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Soliciting Feedback on Educational Assignment

Hello,

My name is Javier Campanini. I'm a student at Cornell University working on a class project for an Online Communities course. Our task is to contribute an article to Wikipedia. There are a total of 3 people on the team and so far, we've started to gather the information and create sections for the article.

The subject of the article is Incentive-Centered Design. The current page (a work in progress) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmc242/incentive-centered_design

We would really appreciate any feedback or comments you could provide on our progress so far.

Thank you, Javier Campanini Jmc242 (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of INSEAD alumni

The article List of INSEAD alumni has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Don't think needs its on page to list every Alumni they have, can keep here and list maybe few exceptional Alumni instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INSEAD#Alumni

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 22:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)