User talk:Alessia.bardi

Article with advert tag

The article I wrote Enhanced_Publication has been tagged with the "advert" tag, without specific motivations. However, the article is not advertising any product and it is rich of references to scientific publications. The article lists several software products as examples. No product is promoted or suggested to be better than the others. Can I just delete the advert tag or do something to the article? Alessia.bardi (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alessia.bardi, no disrespect intended, the article sounds like an advertisement or a trade brochure to me too. For starters, I don't know if this is a trademarked phrase/concept, or not. It's also unclear if this is a concept that has been around for a while, or if it is a WP:NEOLOGISM. When was it created? By whom? It's not well established in the lead what "Enhanced Publication" is. Is it a company? Is it an animal? (obviously not) Is it a method for delivering multimedia information and content to consumers? The article is also laden with cumbersome jargon and advertising-style language I refer to as résumé-speak. Overly-complicated language obfuscates the information you are trying to convey. (Made-up example: "Enhanced Publication allows publishers to fashion inexpensive catalysts for change so they may assertively build business opportunities while encouraging personal employee growth.") I also noticed the use of at least one rhetorical question, which are not typically found in encyclopedias. So to answer your specific question, I would probably leave that cleanup tag until this all got sorted out. I'll leave your help request open so others can contribute their thoughts as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is no doubt whatever that the article promotes the concept of "Enhanced Publication". From start to finish, it is trying to persuade us that "Enhanced Publication" is a good idea. It is full of language such as "certainly an important step ahead", which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered neutral reporting: it is one solid attempt to promote the view that "Enhanced Publication" is a damned good thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• When I wrote the comment above, I had not noticed that you cited your own work in the article. That makes it clear that your intention of your editing, not just its effect, was to use Wikipedia to publicise or promote ideas that you think are worthwhile. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Alessia.bardi, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Alessia.bardi! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Enhanced Publication

The article Enhanced Publication has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This appears to be Original Research and COI. The article's main author is cited as a reference and there appear to only primary sources. The article should either be deleted or cut back to a stub.

While all constructive 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. andy (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Enhanced Publication, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. 'Portions of your edit violate WP:OPINION, i.e. "precious work" and also ongoing WP:Conflict of interest issue.' —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 12:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

I am new to Wikipedia and your feedback has been very useful.

First aspect I’d like to clarify: Enhanced Publications are not only a research concept, but also and mainly a real thing (search Google for this: https://www.google.it/#q=%22enhanced+publications%22 ).

Second important aspect: my collegues and I have not invented them (so we are not trying to “sell our stuff”). We have been working on this interesting dynamic, novel and challenging research topic for a while and we have recently drafted a survey of the existing solutions, some of which are already on wikipedia. We were pushed by them and others in the community to build a wikipedia page, which could hopefully become a place where the definition of enhanced publications can be refined over time to keep up with its inherent dynamism, together with the links to all its possible instantiations in the real world.

We tried to adapt the page following your remarks, though I know that more can be done, especially regarding the guidelines of Manual of style. Alessia.bardi (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What you're describing when you say the "page ... could hopefully become a place where the definition of enhanced publications can be refined over time..." is original research which is never allowed on Wikipedia and is one of the main reasons that the article is being considered for deletion. Wikipedia is a an encyclopedia, i.e. a place for documenting notable things that already exist. Wikipedia is not for developing new ideas and collaborating with colleagues. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Wtwilson3, I agree that Wikipedia should report on "things that exist", and Enhanced Publications exist! They do since well before we have been mentioning them here. There are books and articles and applications about them. People actually use them in the real world, while researchers and companies improve them and therefore "refine their definition". By this we mean that further pointers will be added and maybe sub-categories will be specified. The same happens for research ideas such as Nosql and Virtual research environment. I do not think these should be deleted, they exist, they are research topics and real applications Paolo.manghi (Talk)