Talk:DORIS (particle accelerator)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Connection declaration
edit | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Redactrice at DESY (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
[Declaration above retrieved from Special:Diff/1159109529 and Special:Diff/1159147337. —Quondum 18:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)]
New article proposal
editDORIS (particle accelerator) is a proposal for a new article to correct, update and de-clutter the main article about DESY. The information about DESY’s individual accelerators have already been moved to their own pages (see for example PETRA.) However, a page about the DORIS accelerator doesn't yet exist, so I suggest to create it using the content from the DESY article. I made minor edits for language.
Unfortunately, the DORIS article has been rejected because “the author works for DESY”, which makes it impossible to follow the plan of updating DESY and proceed, as with the other DESY facilities, to outsource the historical details on the DESY accelerator and DORIS to new articles. I’d be grateful for any advice on how to solve this conundrum!Redactrice at DESY (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Redactrice at DESY: What is meant by "... were operated in circulation"? Maybe in rather "in rotation", meaning on a repeating roster? —Quondum 20:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Quondum You're right, it should be "in rotation" Redactrice at DESY (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate?
editThis looks like a duplicate of Draft:Doris (particle accelerator). Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- The other should be deleted; this has the correct title. —Quondum 18:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- The other one has evidence of a previous AFC rejection ([1]). Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the given reason being that the submitter works for the organization about which the article is about. However, the editor concerned is being completely cooperative about declaring their status (as you will see from the declaration at the top of this talk page). Such individuals can contribute significantly to accuracy and completeness, and thus should not be dismissed out of hand, provided they do not act in a biased fashion and they follow the guidelines. We significantly discouraged this one through that brusque handling. Johnjbarton and I have been interacting with this editor, giving some guidance and encouragement. —Quondum 23:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- The other one has evidence of a previous AFC rejection ([1]). Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)