User talk:RobertCCarter
Welcome![edit]
Hi RobertCCarter! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Fiddle Faddle 19:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
| This is RobertCCarter's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
AfC notification: Draft:Color coding technology for visualization has a new comment[edit]
Please, before editing this further, clarify if the material is directly from your published articles or not. If it is (i.e. close paraphrasing or copy/paste), it will need to be removed and paraphrased instead. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sam-2727, An alternative is for the author(s) to donate the text. There is a formal process for this administered by WP:OTRS. , but the actual method I have forgotten since it is many years since I found my way into it Fiddle Faddle 22:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Timtrent, I'm actually an OTRS agent myself. You would just email permissions@wikimedia.org and they'll handle it from there. But I don't think it's RobertCCarter's right to donate as it's published in a journal which likely has some sort of exclusive licensing agreement. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
RobertCCarter (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Hi. Thank you for the helpful advice. I'm not sure technically how to reply, or even to talk, but here's an attempt. You are correct that I am using ideas from my published papers over the years (plus lots of other people's ideas, as cited). However, none of the Figures or text is from those articles. I'm sure that a lingusitic analysis of the proposed Wikipedia article and those papers would yield a low index of plagiarism. In Wikipedia, I'm trying to put the whole story together in a new way that would be useful to people who want to improve their visualizations of data. Now I have the benefit of perspective and hindsight. When I wrote the papers I had a vision of what might be possible, decades in the future. But now I can see how the whole body of knowledge (related to color coding technology) comes together. I have consulted international experts on color and on visualization, and they tell me that what I have done would be a contribution. A nice feature of Wikipedia is that it is alive; as people add to the knowledge then can edit my article. I turned 71 yesterday, so I'm not thinking in terms of me pushing this field much more.RobertCCarter (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
RobertCCarter (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)New input from the author (Chipman, SF) of the citation on military situation displays in the Color Coding Applications section. Her report, which I cited, is in this:
RTO TECHNICAL REPORT TR-IST-021, Multimedia Visualisation of Massive Military Datasets, was published June 2007, Copyright © RTO/NATO 2007, ISBN 978-92-837-0067-8. You can access it:
RobertCCarter (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- RobertCCarter, I obtained access to your articles from another editor and you're right that it turns out there are no copyright violations. You do use close paraphrasing sometimes, but I suppose that's just the way you write. See my additional comments on the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Color coding technology for visualization (July 20)[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Color coding technology for visualization and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Color coding technology for visualization, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, 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.
|
Hello, RobertCCarter!
Having an article 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! Sam-2727 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
|
AfC notification: Draft:Color coding technology for visualization has a new comment[edit]
AfC notification: Draft:Color coding technology for visualization has a new comment[edit]
Color coding technology for data visualization[edit]
RobertCCarter (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)I appeciated the constructive criticisms and interventions (e.g., improved graphics formats) offered by editors. Based on the criticisms, I have continued to work on my proposed submission. I agree with the critics; it is much better based on the editor's suggestions.
One criticism was that the figures were too big. Now they are smaller. The largest, Figure 5, deals with the subject of legibility, so the figure is big enough to enable legibility. I hope the present status of the Figure sizes is acceptable.
Another criticism was that there were too many instances of multiple citations for the same fact. Now the vast majority are single citations per fact. A counterexample is a sentence that directs the reader's attention to visualization textbooks, citing three textbooks. There is a double citation for a hard-to-get book that was published twice, with the order of authors reversed, a year apart. I cite both publications to give the reader a better chance of being able to get one of the two instantiations of the same material. There are a couple more double citations involving the same fact as substantiated using two different criteria.
An important criticism was to avoid essay-like characteristics. I have deleted personal pronouns. All the material presented has citations of published sources. There are many links to Wikipedia pages and other web resources. I think the presentation is objective, helping people primarily interested in data visualization to use color technology.
An editor asked me to condense. Many sections, paragraphs, sentences, phrases and words have been deleted or combined. The net result is a more concise and tightly written document. If you cannot agree that this is the optimum degree of condensation, please suggest topics for elimination from this article.
Thank you.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Color coding technology for visualization (August 11)[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Color coding technology for visualization and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Color coding technology for visualization, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, 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.
```` The editor voiced "concern" that "this is close paraphrasing of an existing journal article." There is no other article like this. Nowhere will you find any published writing (by any author inclding me) that ties together the pre-existing literature on color coding technology for visualization. When I vetted my draft for a Wikipedia article with several experts in this field (color technology, graphic design, color in display systems, vision science, human factors, cognitive science and a visualization text author) they each were enthusiastic that this would be a worthwhile and unprecedented encyclopedic summary.
The remaining objection to what I have written was that it is an "essay." When I look at the link provided for essay, I find four criteria, none of which apply to what I have written. 1) No original reasearch is presented; all is already published as indicated by 82 citations. 2) No personal invention is presented, in the sense described by the essay criterion. 3) No "feelings" are presented, rather the writing is about knowledge as required. and 4) There is no interpersonal discussion. Perhaps my reading of the link on "essay" is in error. If so, please let me know which of the criteria I am violating, so I can attempt to fix the transgression.
I prefer Wikipedia (to other venues) for three reasons. 1) The figures are much better viewed on a self-luminous screen (than in print). 2) The exposition makes extensive use of links to related Wikipedia articles and web resources. and 3) Wikipedia is open access (I think this material will have a wide audience). My family have been donors to the Wikimedia Foundation because we believe in the open access dissemination of verifiable useful knowledge.
Thank you to the editors who helped me to improve this writing. Someone made the Figures compliant; great job! The writing is much better condensed and with fewer citations per fact, as suggested by other editors.
- Not the end of the line, no. Have you heard of the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors? What I don;t want to do is to take the bold decision to migrate your work to main space without a final try at taking your heavily polished material and asking one of them to see whatthey might achieve. My moving it now might risk it being discussed for deletion, which is horrid to receive. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Now they do not do drafts, but I am asking one that I have worked with in the past to give me some advice on your draft. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have received what I think you will find to be very useful advice. The editor is a very experienced taker and shaker of articles into submission. They copyedit for fun!!
- What I suggest is that you look at their reply to me and then give yourself Friday and the weekend away from even looking at Wikipedia. Let your brain mull the advice over and I think you have a fighting chance of making this fly.
- This draft has been enormous task and you must feel discouraged. That is why I think you need a breather. There is no deadline here, so do not drive yourself towards one Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Now they do not do drafts, but I am asking one that I have worked with in the past to give me some advice on your draft. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
````Wow, that is so helpful. Thank you!! I'll ponder the advice for a while and then think specifically about how to apply it. Good luck with all else you are doing!```` RobertCCarter (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC) The editors’ recent suggestions have been very helpful. A new initial paragraph of the header puts color coding in an historical perspective, and introduces the technical megatrends giving rise to contemporary color-coded visualization of data. The next paragraph succinctly summarizes the entire Wikipedia article. The end of the header is an example, inviting reader participation. There was an editorial suggestion to write about related ongoing R&D. The new final paragraph of the article does this. The editors and some of my other readers suggested promoting the section on color-coding applications to the beginning of the body of the article. I have now done this, and I like what this does for the text. The editors noted that it was inappropriate to bold the most important ideas of the article. Now I italicize these key points, and reiterate them as a summary conclusion. Some of my early technical pre-readers (particularly one university teacher of design) raved about these concise essential statements, so I’m loath to give them up completely. Although the editors didn’t clearly say what they meant about being more Wikipedia-like and less essay-like, I took this repeated criticism to heart. For one thing, I have scoured the article to remove all personal pronouns. So the article no longer refers to the reader as “you” and to their display as “your”, for instance. For another thing, I have worked to be less prescriptive and more descriptive. Both of these campaigns led to many small changes that I agree have made the article more encyclopedic. In addition, I have stripped internal redundancies wherever I could find them. Furthermore, I have been on a search and destroy mission aimed at hyperbole (e.g., got rid of “seminal” and “unique”), metaphor, waffle, editorializing, ad hominem and other problems listed by an editor. One editor expressed concern that this proposed Wikipedia article is a reprise of an article published elsewhere. It is true that this proposed contribution draws upon about 20 of my publications. But it also cites more than 50 publications by other authors. I can assure you that there is no publication anywhere, by any author, that attempts an overview of color coding for visualization of data. In particular, I have written no other text and Figures like this. Furthermore, I have not extracted any text or figures from any other publications for use here. I hope there is some coherence between what I wrote here and what I have written elsewhere, but this proposed Wikipedia contribution is a new creation entirely. An editor suggested deleting my previous ending paragraph, an overview of other writings about visual presentation of data. I saved a few of the references (for the new historical paragraph), but I have deleted the entire offending paragraph. Great idea! If you have any more specific suggestions like these, I’d be enthusiastic about doing the work. I’ll be sailing Kalmar Nyckel (see her website) from Sept 19-25 from Mystic CT to Wilmington DE, so please don’t interpret a few days of non-responsiveness as reflecting lack of intention to be responsive. Thank you! RobertCCarter (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
COI[edit]
Hello, RobertCCarter. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 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 WP:Spam);
- 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. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
COI[edit]
````I'm happy to address your inquiries about conflict of interest. My proposed contribution is 1) not about myself, friends, colleagues, organization, company, past employers (I'm retired) or competitors. 2) not affecting any other article. 3) not involving any conflicts of interest, commercial or otherwise. My interest is solely to present Color Coding for Data Visualization as a coherent body of knowledge. 4) not linked to affiliated organizations because I have no relevant affiliated organizations. I'm not much of a joiner, partly due to this concern. Full disclosure; I am a trustee of North Jersey Concert Band and of Kalmar Nyckel Foundation. I was a trustee of Salem Community College in Salem County NJ (2013-2018). I was an employee (1998-2006) of New Jersey Institute of Technology. I was a US Navy officer (1972-1998). I was unpaid chairman (2013-2018) of a technical committee for the CIE, an international standards organization. The proposed contribution has a link to the Wikipedia article about CIE, since they are the corporate author of some international standards referenced in the article. One can hardly write about color technology without mention of the CIE. I have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, in making the proposed contribution to Wikipedia. 5) not associated with any client, employer or other affiliation. Furthermore I subscribe to and have tried to comply with the Wikipedia content policies: neutral point of view, verifiable, and nothing original. During my prolonged editing of the proposed contribution, I have kept these content policies in mind. Changes have been made specifically to avoid even the appearance of non-neutrality, anything not verifiable nor anything original to the contribution that hadn't been published elsewhere before. Thank you for this opportunity to address potential conflicts of interest. I welcome any specific questions about particular items of concern. RobertCCarter (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi RobertCCarter, the reason why I flagged this as COI was because the writeup referenced a number of your papers, and since you were connected with CIE, you have some apparent COI with the article and with the CIE article. It also still reads like an essay with the introduction walking through the content, the summaries of key points in a bullet list, and a Conclusion section, which would be great for technical papers, textbooks, and presentations but not quite what Wikipedia would have. It can probably be condensed more so that a layperson can read and understand. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
RobertCCarter (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Thank you for describing specific concerns. I will work on more condensation, deleting the features described as not appropriate. Another Wikipedia editor asked for a clear brief summary of the contents in the header, so criticism of this summary as not appropriate confuses me, but I am old enough to understand by now that communication is a difficult thing. Is it really a COI to have written about the same subject in peer-reviewed publications? Wasn't the Plate Tectonics Wikipedia article written by experts published in that field, for instance? Other experts in color technology, have written in Wikipedia, citing publications they have contributed to. If there are particular references that should be removed, please identify them and I'll do it out of respect for your deeper understanding of Wikipedia. As for being "connected with CIE", I was not involved until I was asked by CIE to chair a technical committee on gray scale for them. I was not a CIE member or officer before during or after that work. I coordinated an international committee who wrote the report on gray scale for self-luminous devices. That is not much of a connection or COI. They asked me because I knew something about the subject; presumably a qualification to write for Wikipedia, not a disqualification. If all reference to CIE should be deleted, or just to the CIE report I coordinated writing, please say the word and it is done. I appreciate the time you have taken to clarify what is and is not Wikipedia. RobertCCarter (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC) RobertCCarter (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC) I'm trying to be responsive to what I understand your concerns to be. I have deleted the concise summary in the header. I have deleted the summary conclusions. I have deleted the reference for the 2018 CIE report on grayscale, and corresponding mention of CIE in relation to this report. I have deleted the link to the CIE website, and associated mention of the CIE in relation to their 2020 report on enhancing images for viewing by the color blind. I'm inferring that you think I'm a CIE marketing person. This is ironic; CIE thinks of me as a freeloader who never joined their organization although I attended CIE meetings to chair the technical committee that wrote their report on grayscale of self-luminous displays. It is difficulet to write about color technology without allusion to CIE; they are a major international standards body for color. If I have misunderstood your concerns, I apologize and I welcome any clarification you are kind enough to provide. RobertCCarter (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Color coding technology for visualization has been accepted[edit]
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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DarkGlow (✉) 21:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ending orphan status: links to a Wikipedia article: Color Coding Technology for Visualization[edit]
Hi,
I notice that Color Coding Technology for Visualization is labeled as an orphan. How can I help establish links to it? I read about links and the pipe notation.
I have ideas about external URL that should/could link to this one. For example there are Wikipedia articles on color difference, visualization (graphics), color coding and another on color code; these are probably the best Wikipedia articles to link to Color Coding Technology for Visualization (there are links from the article to those other Wikipedia articles, so I propose a link back also). In addition, friends in academe and industry have told me they find Color Coding Technology for Visualization to be useful; I could ask them to link to it from their organizational URLs if that is relevant to the "orphan" concern.
If I can establish such incoming links by editing the article, Color Coding Technology for Visualization, I'd be happy to do the work. Is there a tool or wizard for this? I know how to go to my sandbox to edit a work in progress, but now that Color Coding Technology for Visualization has been published online, I don't know how to edit it. For instance, one reader suggested I add a sentence about color in peripheral vision. I could support the new sentence with the perfect 2014 reference which is a CIE report (that I had nothing to do with, so no COI).
Thank you for any pointers about how to establish links to end the orphan status of Color Coding Technology for Visualization, and about how to edit the article now that it is published online.
RobertCCarter (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |