TheLens

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lens (August 30)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Lens and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! TheLens, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:TheLens/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:TheLens/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Lens

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:The Lens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheLens (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize for not understanding all the wikipedia rules, but I need to clarify that this account is only for one person, the communication manager, in the Lens. The Lens is NOT a commercial site. It is a PUBLIC resource that allows the public to understand patented inventions and analyse their knowledge artefacts. It is a well respected resource in the scientific, university, and business communities. I am happy to share the various sources that work or use the Lens. We understood your concerns re the initially submited Lens page as being too promotional and the junior communication manager then attempted to seek help from senior wikipedia editors to improve the content, comply with wikimedia foundation guidelines, and hopefully be able to post the page. Once she posted the job ad for a senior editor to help edit the content, one of the interested editors seemed to have read the content and decided, WITHOUT THE LENS PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT, to go ahead and post the Lens Wikipage. However, once it was posted, I (Osmat Jefferson, a Lens Director) contacted the person and requested that they state publicly that they have NOT been offered a contract or paid by the Lens to post the ad. I also suggested some changes in the text and indicated that if it is WITHIN the terms of USe and guidelines, Cambia would be happy to work with the editor to correct the sources and solve the reported issues in that site. However, I came to understand that this is not possible. I am not an editor but today, I have applied for a private account. I can be reached at Osmat@cambia.org and be happy to discuss this issue further and provide all background information on this matter. I would like though to stress that this page is NOT a promotional page for a commercial site. It is a public resource. There are many other commercial patent data services such as espacenet and Derwent that have wikipedia pages. The Lens deserves to have a page. I agree though that it needs to be edited thoroughly. Would it be possible to discuss possible options to resolve what seems to be a series of misunderstandings in this matter?

Here is list for you the sources that endorsed or used the Lens products/services in the past few years just to demonstrate that The Lens is committed to open and transparent innovation systems and deserves your re-evaluation of this page. In 2013 the Lens had was endorsed in an editorial in Nature http://www.nature.com/news/the-patent-bargain-1.14333 QUT lists The Lens as a patent database under their library guides at http://libguides.library.qut.edu.au/patents/dbs In Patent blogs and patent new for Legal services, the Lens services was documented http://ttconsultants.com/blog/is-disintermediation-of-patent-search-on-the-horizon/ In cancer moonshot webinar, The Lens was provided as an open resource https://search.uspto.gov/search?query=PatSeq&op=Search&affiliate=web-sdmg-uspto.gov Detailed coverage of the Lens services as open source patent analytics is described at https://poldham.github.io/lens/ and this is NOT a self citation The lens provides free services to other open public databases and other patent data service providers. Example of linkages with open public databases, Pubmed and Crossref and University of Califiornia Santa Cruz, https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTrackUi?hgsid=637753745_RLkPcL6kMJL98IrA6qepMOTnAjGz&c=chr21&g=patSeq

and an example of a free service is with Minesoft https://minesoft.com/2016/07/14/patbase-patseq-combination-sequence-searching-needs/

Here is another source acknowledging the Lens services from the patent and trade resource Center association http://ptrca.org/node/490 Latest collaboration with the Lens project with Nature Index: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666_supp/full/548S9a.html Thank you, Osmat Jefferson

Decline reason:

We would not want anyone from The Lens having anything to do with creating or editing an article on The Lens: this would be a conflict of interest. Therefore this username is inappropriate and will not be unblocked. If Dr Jefferson would like to create an account (User:OsmatJefferson is available) then that would be fine, but she should not edit anything related to this organisation, for the same reason. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.