Talk:Kai Staats

Disclosure

Heimhenge Enterprises was paid by Kai Staats to create and edit this biography of Kai Staats. The Article was created in my Sandbox and published to Mainspace today. Feedback and comments are appreciated. Heimhenge (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Username Change

My username has changed from "Heimhenge" to "Astro3.142". This was done to resolve a conflict with similarity to my business name. My apologies for any redirections.

This user previously used another account.

Discussion

Today I noticed this page had been flagged as "Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content." I checked the guidelines in the Terms of Use and added the disclaimer you see above before the page went live. How do I resolve this and get the flag removed? Or must I wait for someone to do a cleanup on it? Thanks.Heimhenge (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Heimhenge, Ive changed to Better tags but please note that only one person may use an account and accounts must not have only the company name as username. See WP:UPOL, and may I kindly request that you visit WP:CHUS And Request a new name. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick assistance RhinosF1. Much appreciated. I see we have several issues here, beyond the one you've already corrected. Let's address the username first. The name of my company is Heimhenge Enterprises. When I became a Wikipedia editor I chose the username "Heimhenge". I read WP:UPOL and don't understand what the problem is. Is it that my company name contains my username?Heimhenge (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The main problem for me, as a reader, is not that somebody paid to have the article written, but that it *reads* like an article that somebody paid to write - i.e. an advertisement, or a résumé. If this were not the case, I would never have suspected anything, nor would I have checked the talk page. For starters, the subject of the article is not notable enough (I don't mean this as an insult - he objectively does not meet the requirements for encyclopedic notability) in the fields that this article mentions. He already appears to have a personal website, with a bio and résumé, which should be enough. I don't see why he would pay somebody to write an entry on this website...Thisisallwrong (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Insult not taken. When the subject approached me with this job I wondered the same thing, read the Wikipedia notability guidelines at WP:PEOPLE, and described the criteria to him. I cautioned him that notability might be challenged. He took the criteria list I had provided, pulled together what was needed for citation, and came back arguing that he felt "sufficiently notable". After I looked at what he had assembled, I had to agree. So I took the job. I should point out that Staats meets notability criteria in two categories: academic and creative professional (including software development, film production, writing, public speaking). Perhaps most notable was his development of Yellow Dog Linux and iConji, both of which have Wikipedia articles. I should also note that 6 other editors have reviewed this article and none have challenged notability. Except for the usual background and personal info, everything in that article is there for a reason. Either to support notability or provide background for future additions. His AI software is just now being deployed at LIGO for the purpose of detecting gravitational waves from supernovae, and may yield significant future discoveries in exciting areas like SETI. I rest my case.Heimhenge (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you've read the guidelines and think this passes I'm not going to argue about it. With regards to the boxes at the top of the page now (conflict of interest, and advertisement-like style), that's not easy to judge so I'll leave the moderators and other users to make a decision on what edits might be appropriate, if any. Thisisallwrong (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Just trying to do the job I was hired for. I'll get to those remaining banners tomorrow. Thanks for your feedback.Heimhenge (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Heimhenge, Only just seen this. Yes, the issue is your username is too similar as the company name. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RhinosF1. That's what I suspected but wanted to be sure before changing my username. I'll get that done immediately. Heimhenge (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

New thread. I have added the source of payment (which I would have thought was obviously the subject Staats) to my disclosure at the top of this page. I assume that takes care of the stated objection about not disclosing the source of payment. May I remove that WP:PAID banner now? Thanks. Heimhenge (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RhinosF1 has already removed the "undeclared paid editing" tag. Huon (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Note that my username has changed from Heimhenge to Astro3.142.) I see that banner has been removed. What I'm talking about is the existing banner on this Talk page that alleges "connected contributor". Having now stated the source of payment, may I remove that banner? Astro3.142 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the banner at the top; I hope now it's correct regarding you, your business and your client. Removing the banner would not be in the spirit of disclosure, which all of this is about. Huon (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see now why that is needed. It's the standard shortcode for disclosing a paid article. Sorry I missed that. So that "improvised" Disclosure section I added at the top is not really needed at this point? Astro3.142 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind my previous comment. I decided it was best to leave it there, even though slightly redundant. Like you said, it's all about being transparent. Astro3.142 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

COI

I need to address the perceived COI flagged by AnomieBOT. There are indeed connections between myself and the subject of this article. First, I was hired by Staats to create this article. I'm a freelance tech writer, and I have worked with him on other occasions. He's one of many clients. As a favor, I did some edits to the article for yum (software). I also created the Wiki page for iConji during a period shortly after my tenure as consultant to Over the Sun, LLC, where I assisted with the pictographic vocabulary development. The iConji page was not a paid job. It was my first real contribution to Wiki, and I wanted to create my first page about a notable topic that I knew better than most. So yes, I have a "close connection" to the subject, but "past association" ≠ COI. I know Staats well enough to write an accurate biography, and I really tried to write the article from a neutral point of view. If anyone points out what doesn't sound neutral, I will promptly change it to comply. Thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have also removed 6 of the original 10 External Links. They were obviously inappropriate. I failed to read the External Links guidelines as carefully as I should have. That may have more to do with the Advert flag than the COI flag, but I thought I'd mention that since there is some overlap between those two flags. Astro3.142 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No response to my previous comments for over a week now, so requesting assistance again. I have read all the guidelines linked to in the "Advert" and "COI" banner and believe they should be removed. I read several other biographical articles from the category "software engineers", and the "tone" of this article seems no different than what is used elsewhere. See for example Austin McChord, Vint Cerf, or Fred Brooks. I know I can't be the one who removes the "Advert" or "COI" flags, so I'd appreciate some input into what might need to be changed. Thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is full of issues that are a classical product of conflicts of interest. I have removed the COI tag as requested and pointed out the problems more precisely. If you have a conflict of interest, please note that you are discouraged from directly editing the article. If you are being paid to make the edits, you are strongly discouraged from directly editing the article. As shown by my recent edits, the WP:COI guideline has been created for reasons that strongly apply to this article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ToBeFree, for clarifying the issues and being more specific about what needs to be changed. Appreciate the quick feedback. First, I have reread the COI guidelines and understand that my only further activity can be suggestions for edits on this Talk page. So here's my question/suggestion: The last sentence of the Career section is indisputable, as a visit to Staats' personal website will demonstrate. The link is in the info box. This is a statement of what he does, but I'm not allowed to cite Staats' personal website. So why doesn't the Filmography section support that last sentence and eliminate the need for a citation? Thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Astro3.142, thank you very much for the suggestion. This may be a valid use case for a source published by the article subject, if Over the Sun, LLC is not considered to be a "third party" per the WP:BLPSELFPUB policy. However, I did visit kaistaats.com and was unable to find a good reference for this. Could you point me to the specific page that you are referring to? Ideally, we'll need an explicit mention of the founding year (better an exact date), if possible both on kaistaats.com and overthesun.com, preferably on a permanent central information page, not a blog post. We must not manually deduce the information from the publication date of a blog post. We'd also ideally need a third-party source that confirms that the production of films is ongoing (2009 may be too long ago), because the present tense of the Wikipedia sentence may else be incorrect. Ideally, a third-party source should also confirm that the film topics are "science outreach" and "education", but we may be able to rely on primary sources for this specific information.
What first seems indisputable may actually require many careful thoughts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, thanks ToBeFree for the quick response. That was my error. The website in question is at https://overthesun.com/. I checked the guidelines at WP:BLPSELFPUB and it seems this meets the criteria. OTS is not just Staats, as you can see from the Team page. Can we actually use that as a citation for the sentence you flagged? If so, please do. And should the website in the Info Box be OTS instead of his personal web page? Thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Astro3.142, no problem, thanks for the link. The website does not seem to say that Kai Staats founded Over the Sun, LLC, however. I'll probably need a more specific link. The team page and the subpage about Kai Staats do not seem to mention this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks again ToBeFree. Really appreciate your help. This bio stuff is tricky, and I understand why it has to be. I have contacted Staats who will ask his webmaster to add the required info at https://overthesun.com/. I'll ping you when that happens, probably some time tomorrow. Astro3.142 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging ToBeFree as promised. Just checked https://overthesun.com/ and I see their ABOUT page now includes the missing founding date. On their TEAM page Staats is now listed as FOUNDER & PRODUCER instead of just PRODUCER. Not sure why their webmaster didn't originally include that. Check it out, thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That worked nicely
There is no separate "About" page linked on the website; clicking the "About" link moves the browser view to a section on the home page that appears to contain only the year (2009) of the founding. Manually entering "/about" as URL actually shows an "About" page, but that is empty and does not even contain the text "2009" anywhere in its source code.
Because the exact date is not necessary to prove that the company has been founded 2009, I think we can ignore that. However, the copyright notice in the footer of every page seems to say "© 2016", making me assume that the present tense is incorrect unless proven by third-party articles.
"Over the Sun". web.archive.org. 2019-03-26. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
"About | Over the Sun". web.archive.org. 2019-03-26. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
"Team | Over the Sun". web.archive.org. 2019-03-26. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
"Kai Staats | Over the Sun". web.archive.org. 2019-03-26. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
For the record, the original sentence was:

In 2009 Staats founded Over the Sun, LLC, where he produces films primarily focused on science outreach and education.

I am now replacing this by:

In 2009 Staats founded Over the Sun, LLC, a company primarily focused on science outreach and education.

Using the following references:

• "Team | Over the Sun". Retrieved 2019-03-26.
• "Over the Sun". Retrieved 2019-03-26.
• Staats, Kai. "Biography". Kai Staats. Retrieved 2019-03-26.

Neither of them is ideal; the biography doesn't even mention the year or the founding. For the specific Wikipedia sentence, it will suffice, but I'm doing this with a modest feeling of doubt. This is not good encyclopedic style, but it is "good enough" to implement the request. The lack of independent sources throughout the article raises the question if Graeme Bartlett may like to reconsider their initial review. The reviewed revision was Special:PermanentLink/880187161 and would hopefully not have passed AfC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Good news everyone (especially ToBeFree). I think we can now simplify that 3-bullet citation in ref 15. I didn't much like it either. 3 links to support one sentence!? Turns out a WordPress update crashed their website. When I heard the webmaster was gonna have to do some major work I suggested they rewrite their About page to include all the info needed to support the cited sentence. I think that's the only URL we need there now. Here it is: https://overthesun.com/about/. What do you think? Astro3.142 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Astro3.142, thank you very much for the update.
 Implemented in Special:Diff/890236660; keeping the biography link for now to prove that we're talking about the same person. I have replaced the strange-looking bullets by a simple line break; I think that looks pretty normal now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome ToBeFree. Looks much better now. Thanks for making that change. Might be a dumb question, but why does ref 15 now contain the word "jake"? Astro3.142 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The page author name "Jake" has automatically been extracted from the website's HTML metadata. The company may like to set it to something more meaningful, for example the company name (hiding the specific Wordpress user who has created the page) or the author's full name, and I'll happily update it in both cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation ToBeFree. I could see on the page source where that was coming from. Looks unencyclopedic to just have the page author's name as "jake" so I asked him to change it to "Fedie, Jake" to better conform to encyclopedic style. No idea why he left out the comma between the names, but maybe the auto-citation process does that? Either way, I'd appreciate you updating Ref 15, thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Astro3.142:  Done, thank you very much for the ping. As you have correctly noticed, the website HTML metadata now lists "Fedie Jake" as author name, without a comma between the names. This causes the automatic citation tool to interpret "Jake" as the last name. I have manually fixed this issue, but it may happen again at any time unless the website is fixed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ToBeFree for the quick change. Maybe too quick. :) There's apparently a missing closing tag. Astro3.142 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops. Two too many. Fixed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries ToBeFree. I figured it was some simple typo. Thanks for the fix. Hey, I found what should be considered a reliable third party source for that "citation needed" in the second-last paragraph of the Career section. Take a look at this page: https://insidehpc.com/2008/11/fixstars-acquires-terra-soft-solutions/. If you agree, please go ahead and use that as a citation that verifies both statements in that paragraph. Looks pretty good to me. Thanks again for all your help with this. Astro3.142 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Astro3.142, this seems to be a summary of a press release, and the "full release" link pointing to https://www.fixstars.com/en/company/press/20081111.html just leads to a 404 error page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that dead link to the full article ToBeFree. I should have followed it myself. But here's another I found that is the "full text" of the release with no further links to a "full article". It says pretty much the same thing as the other link, which I thought would suffice since what was in the synopsis alone verified the claims, but I know Wiki hates dead links. So how does this other URL look: https://www.osnews.com/story/20521/terra-soft-acquired-by-fixstars/ ? Astro3.142 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI ToBeFree, but I checked the source code for that About page at https://overthesun.com/about/ and it looks like Jake Fedie has corrected the author info to "Fedie, Jake" with a correctly positioned comma. If/when this reference ever gets scanned again it should now be entered correctly by the auto citation tool. Thanks again for all the assistance. Astro3.142 (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh hey, you're welcome. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation Needed Resolution

Found a URL for a third party source that confirms the statement in the second-last paragraph of the Career section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Staats#Career). Take a look at: https://www.osnews.com/story/20521/terra-soft-acquired-by-fixstars/ and see if that works. Also, as long as you're editing, please delete the first paragraph of that section which also needs a citation. According to Staats there is no way to verify those activities. Thanks to whomever picks up this Help Request and makes the needed changes. Astro3.142 (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

OS News appears to be a WordPress blog, not a reliable source. I'll remove both statements (and the unsourced sections). Huon (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Huon, but that was a bit more editing than I expected. I'd been working my way up from the bottom of that article with other editors and had yet to address the Early Life and Education sections of the article and get them up to Wikipedia standards. I've been told I can't directly edit this article for COI reasons, so I'm not sure how to proceed here. Could you restore those sections so I can address the unsubstantiated statements one at a time, asking for deletion where I can't, and approval of citations where I can? Or should I just resubmit the entire new section after I've revised it for approval and insertion?

A second question please: That blog I cited (https://www.osnews.com/story/20521/terra-soft-acquired-by-fixstars/) seems to meet the third criterion for blogs cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_17#Blogs_and_Self-Published_Sources in that it is "nationally or internationally recognized as a news source". Thes OSnews blog has been online since 2001 according to its archives, and from the comments looks like it has regular readers in the US and abroad. So why can't I cite it in support of that Fixstars acquisition of Terra Soft? If I Google "terra soft acquired by fixstars" I get like 11,000 hits, and I figured this source was good enough. There's even a Wiki article about Fixtars Fixstars Solutions that says the same thing. Astro3.142 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You can still access the content I removed from the article via the page history, for example this old revision. If you can find sources for that content, you're welcome to present them here.

The (old) WT:RS thread that you cite mentions a condition for "news" blogs: "...if it can be demonstrated that the blog itself has become noted for its journalism (if the blog or blogger has won major journalism awards, for example)". Is that the case for OSnews? I couldn't find an indication of such recognition. The relevant policy, WP:SPS, is even more restrictive and requires the author of a blog to be "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (note that OSnews is not a "news blog" as defined by that policy). I cannot find an indication that this holds for Thom Holwerda.

If I search Google News for "terra soft acquired by fixstars", I get zero hits with the quotation marks and one without, and that one is both of dubious reliability for biographical content and doesn't actually say that Terra Soft was acquired by Fixstars. It seems that acquisition was not a particularly significant event. Huon (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the insightful comments Huon. I knew about the revision histories, thanks. What I'll do is rebuild the Early Life and Education sections in my sandbox, try to get them up to standards, and seek feedback when ready. But getting back to that Fixstars acquisition of Terra Soft. I get what you're saying about OSnews. Still, I feel we need to answer the question: Then whatever happened to Terra Soft? Otherwise we kinda leave a piece of the history hanging. I'm still getting 1000s of hits when I do that search. Trying to conform to the guidelines in WP:SPS, here's three of the best I found:

https://insidehpc.com/2008/11/fixstars-acquires-terra-soft-solutions/

https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/65099.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=W5vItTVMLaYC&pg=PT516&lpg=PT516&dq=terra+soft+acquired+by+fixstars&source=bl&ots=56iFk6kiM4&sig=ACfU3U2VuLD2tuTaGByHDqK2ezigvAegRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrrprZ8ITiAhVTnp4KHTdeBfg4ChDoATAJegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=terra%20soft%20acquired%20by%20fixstars&f=false

Sorry about that lengthy last link ... it's a search within a book. Do any of those sources look better to you? I suspect the Linux Bible might be the best, but I wish there was an easier way to cite it. If you agree, couldn't I just cite the book itself (ISBN etc. + page number)? I've seen that done elsewhere on Wikipedia. Astro3.142 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have slightly reworded the content and used the Linux Bible as a source. A page number would indeed be helpful; Google Books sometimes doesn't give those. Huon (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Huon. That page number is 628. Found it via this online version: https://doc.lagout.org/operating%20system%20/linux/Linux%20Bible%2C%202010%20Edition.pdf. Also, Staats tells me that Terra Soft wasn't so much "renamed" and thinks the transition would be better described as: "In 2008 Terra Soft was acquired by the Japanese company Fixstars of Tokyo which established the US corporation Fixstars Solutions, Inc. Staats served briefly as their first COO." That seems to match the Linux Bible content pretty well. Feel free to edit further, but there really wasn't any "renaming", since Terra Soft was in Colorado before assimilation, and Fixstars Solutions was created in California. Astro3.142 (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This source of yours says the company was "rebadged". That seems accurate, given that Terra Soft and Fixstars Solutions shared a location, the staff, and the products. Huon (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point Huon (talk · contribs). Whether "renamed" or "rebadged" I guess it means the same. Let it stand sir. End of this section. Astro3.142 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Opening Section Citation Suggestions

First, I wanted to reiterate my thanks to Huon for providing extensive help with resolving some other citations. Not wanting to overextend my stay, I've posted a general Help flag for this next effort. I believe I can resolve the first "third-party source needed" in the opening section. The claim is: His research includes evolutionary computation applied to noise mitigation, improved instrumentation, and transient detection in multimessenger astronomy. This claim seems to be supported by the existing references #19,20,22,23 which cite the relevant academic papers in the Publications section. I'm also wondering if it would be of benefit (or allowed) to add a reference to the source code for Karoo GP available on GitHub: http://kstaats.github.io/karoo_gp/. Thanks in advance to the editor who takes this Help request. Astro3.142 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject. The references listed under ref tags 19-20 and 22-23 all have the subject's name in their list of authors. As the |reason= parameter was not activated with the use of the {{third-party inline}} template, it is unknown what sources specifically are desired to be placed here. The COI editor is urged to contact the editor who placed the templates - in this case, ToBeFree - in order to discover from them which sources may be used to resolve use of the template. Regards,  Spintendo  20:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback Spintendo. I spent a fair amount of time with ToBeFree resolving some citation issues elsewhere on the page and could probably get the specific reasons if I asked. In fact, I had intended to bring it up but decided to work on some other citations first.

So regarding this [third-party source needed], I don't understand the objections to the references I suggested. These are all peer-reviewed publications that meet the guidelines described in WP:RSE 3.2.1. And this is the lead section of the article, introducing the subject and why he may be of interest to the reader. When the article was created, the claim in question was left without citation since it is substantiated by citations in the Publications section. Likewise the other claim that's flagged as [third-party source needed], which is substantiated by citations in the Career section. Is it necessary to immediately substantiate a lead section statement that identifies what the subject does, when that statement is substantiated later in the article? What am I missing here? Thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Astro3.142 and Spintendo, thanks for taking the time to review this and sorry for causing confusion. This appears to be original research: Yes, these papers appear to have been co-authored by the article subject, and that's exactly the problem: There should ideally be an independent, reliable source that mentions these papers as relevant documents to the biography of Kai Staats, and that describes the topic of these papers as a secondary source. Compiling an arbitrary list of works in a Wikipedia article does not appear to be a good idea; Wikipedia is a tertiary, not a secondary source. A relevant policy may be "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and a more precise template may be {{Refexample}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back ToBeFree, and thanks for clarifying the comment by Spintendo. I've read both WP:RSE and WP:NOR (again) and I'm still confused about how to apply these policies properly. If I understand (both of) your comments correctly, you're saying that to support the claim: His research includes evolutionary computation applied to noise mitigation, improved instrumentation, and transient detection in multimessenger astronomy. I cannot use a selection of peer-reviewed papers published in the APS Journal, all of which clearly show research in those areas, simply because the subject's name is listed as a co-author?

WP:NOR explicitly notes "peer-reviewed journals" as a "reliable source". So perhaps the issue is that papers published in a scientific journal are considered to be primary sources? I don't get why that would be.

So you seem to be saying the correct way to support that claim is to find an independent reputable source who says something to the effect of "Staats has published several papers related to his research on evolutionary computation applied to noise mitigation, improved instrumentation, and transient detection in multimessenger astronomy."?

Why would you want to step back one level and have another person point out that these papers support the claim? Why not go right to the source ... the actual published papers? Isn't that the point of providing citations? We want to give curious readers the ability to look at the source themselves to verify the claim. What am I missing? Maybe I should ping CaptainObvious. :) Astro3.142 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:) Astro3.142, let's say the "ideal" way to support the claim is providing a reliable, detailled, secondary, independent source for it. This is true for all claims and is normally the requirement for having an article in the first place. An (over)simplified explanation of potential issues is "WP:42", and an essay describing a common misconception about the topic is "Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability".

That said, even if Kai Staats is (barely?) notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, the whole article may... ideally... have to be shortened extremely, to the amount of information that can be proven using independent, reliable sources. A paper co-authored by the article subject is not an independent source. The relevant part of Wikipedia's original research policy is "WP:PRIMARY".

Per WP:COIRESPONSE, part of the conflict of interest guideline, I am – in bold text – asked not to rely on the sources offered by paid editors. Not least because of this advice, I am unsure how to continue here. I do not "own" the maintenance tag and I'm fine with another independent reviewer like Spintendo removing it, and replacing it by the provided references. I personally am too cautious to do so.

As the article is meant to be as informative and factual as possible, and as the article is not meant to promote (or "look good for") the article subject, it should not really matter if the maintenance tag stays in the lead section, pointing out a potential problem that should ideally be solved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answers ToBeFree. I appreciate the time you're taking to help me out. I read everything you linked me to, and I think the "light bulb" just lit. The issue is interpreting primary source guidelines. Here's the guideline from WP:PRIMARY I'm referring to:

"[any] scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." (emphasis mine)

So if the claim I wanted to support was "Staats determined that the use of random number generators could help remove noise from radio signals." that would clearly violate the primary source guidelines since his name is on the paper. Totally reasonable and understood.

But here the claim is not about the outcome of an experiment. The only claim is that this is an area of research Staats engages in. And the very existence of these papers is all that's needed to confirm that assertion. I guess that's why I'm having a tough time seeing the applicability of that primary source guideline. Comments most welcome, thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Astro3.142, you're welcome, and I do see your point. I may well be overcautious here, and I am fine with anyone else doing this, but I personally won't use only primary sources to reference the "His research includes" sentence, which is the second sentence of the article. In my opinion, at least such a fundamental part of the lead section should be referenced by independent, reliable sources. Or, in other words – if it is impossible to find independent, reliable sources for such a basic claim, then there may be a real notability problem here, and adding primary sources won't solve it.

Realistically, I am aware that this statement is pretty much a decline and unlikely to be overruled by a reading reviewer. I can only repeat that this is not my intention, and that I am sorry for the disappointment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll save you the outdent this round, ToBeFree. Woulda' been semi-colon #8. :) I understand your reason for caution but disagree on the strict interpretation of "is a primary source on the outcome" as used in WP:PRIMARY. So allow me to try one final approach before I request that claim be deleted from the lead section. I refer to the following from WP:PRIMARY:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

The proposed reference (#19,20,22,23) is a compilation of primary sources that requires no interpretation or specialized knowledge. All it requires is a reading of the titles to see that the claim:

His research includes evolutionary computation applied to noise mitigation, improved instrumentation, and transient detection in multimessenger astronomy.

is true. One could even continue to the abstracts for further validation, but I think the titles alone should suffice. Please explain why that WP:PRIMARY interpretation doesn't apply here. Again, my thanks for your time. Astro3.142 (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Astro3.142: Oh, thanks.

I'm not even necessarily saying it doesn't apply; when I'm referring to myself as "overcautious", I also mean "possibly interpreting the policy stricter than necessary".

A potential issue with these sources could be the assumption that there is only one "Kai Staats" in the world who could be the author of these documents. Imagine his name was "John Miller" instead. An article, book or encyclopedia entry that describes the person's life in detail may be more reliable in this regard. Assuming that this is not necessary here appears to be an interpretation based on the rarity of the name, which is not given by the source itself.

A potential issue with a master thesis, specifically, could be the lack of correction annotations. Such a thesis is, as far as I know and appears to be the case here, published in the way it was presented for review, together with all errors that have been found during review, without these errors being marked or corrected in the public document.

WP:PRIMARY also contains the following advice: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

Regarding biographies of living persons, WP:BLPPRIMARY mainly refers to WP:PRIMARY yet offers additional advice: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources."

I'm exercising extreme caution, possibly more extreme than required even by that policy, but I think that if I'm erring here, I'm at least erring on the right side.

Regarding deleting the claim from the lead section, that's a strange feeling to me. It doesn't feel good to do so either, because the sentence is not written badly and constitutes a fundamental part of this important section. Normally, adding a good reference for such a fundamental sentence is much more beneficial to the encyclopedia than deleting it. The feeling reveals, again, a deeper problem: There seems to be no such "good reference", and even a paid editor does not find one that meets my (admittedly strict) criteria.

Per your pre-announced request, I'm removing the sentence for now. Looking at the larger conversation, while this specific talk page section may have been unsatisfying, I hope that the general impression of how the Wikipedia community handles these requests is a positive one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that out ToBeFree. I'll see if I can find a third-party somewhere that states those are indeed his areas of research. Still, it seems obvious to me. It also appears that various sections of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY contradict each other. I could pursue that argument, but for now, best to have deleted that claim. And yes, I noticed how the lead section doesn't "flow" like it did before. Seems more a staccato burst of unrelated statements. I might propose a rewrite later (unless I can find that elusive third-party source).

Funny that you bring up the question "How do we know this is the same Kai Staats?". I didn't think it was a very common name either, but when the article was first posted I included a parenthetical disambiguation after his name in the title, i.e. Kai Staats (filmmaker, researcher writer). One of the first edits done (I think by a bot) removed that disambiguation.

I did find a third-party source for the remaining [third-party source needed] on the claim the Staats invented iConji. Here's the URL: https://www.foxnews.com/tech/inventor-proposes-new-language-for-cell-phone-messaging-using-hieroglyphics. If you like it, please go ahead and cite that news article by J. Kaplan. Thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Astro3.142, I have now implemented the following edits: Special:Diff/896785979, Special:Diff/896786235 and Special:Diff/896786276.

Regarding WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY, the latter explicitly contains the text "Unless restricted by another policy". Independently of this clarification, the "Gaming the system" guideline (section "Gaming the use of policies and guidelines") at least mentions "playing policies against each other", when done with improper intent, as a potential form of disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again ToBeFree. Appreciate your updating that last citation. And to follow up on part of your previous comment that I failed to respond to: I have seen this entire editing experience as a positive one. No complaints. You (and other editors) have provided valuable insights into what makes a good article. It has been a learning process. And no worries about my arguing WP:PRIMARY against WP:BLPPRIMARY. Wouldn't do that. Just sayin' I sense an inconsistency. Instead, I'll find that third party who can verify the now deleted claims about Staats's areas of research. Talk to you again down the road. Astro3.142 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, Astro3.142, I'm happy to hear that.

For upcoming requests, I think using {{Request edit}} in a new section again would be the best way to continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition to lead section

The closing sentence in the lead section should be expanded to include reference to Yellow Dog Linux. I respectfully suggest the following:

Previous work includes the creation of Yellow Dog Linux (YDL)[ref] and the digital pictographic language iConji.[6]

where [ref] is: https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/56379.html and/or https://lwn.net/Articles/142080/

Yellow Dog Linux also has an article in Wikipedia, so an internal link would be good to add. I know YDL is mentioned later in the Career section, but it was a significant piece of programming that's still in wide use, so it seems to deserve mention in the lead section. Thanks to whoever helps with this. Astro3.142 (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 16-MAY-2019

  Edit request declined  

• The request does not state what it was about YDL which made it "a significant piece of programming".

Regards,  Spintendo  16:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition to lead section v.2

Thanks for looking at that Spintendo. I wasn't so much claiming YDL's significance...that's a whole 'nuther argument that can be supported by some of the citations in this article as well as those on the Yellow Dog Linux page. My suggested edit:

Previous work includes the creation of Yellow Dog Linux (YDL)[ref] and the digital pictographic language iConji.[6]

was based more on style considerations for that lead section. Most of this article is concerned with Staats's current work in radio astronomy and educational filmmaking. Both YDL and iConji were previous work, so they seemed to fit together in the same sentence as a means for providing a quick recap of his career. That's the kind of thing that MOS:LEAD seems to be encouraging. I should not have used that claim in my previous edit request. It wasn't really relevant to my reasoning. My apologies. Astro3.142 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The claim is that the subject's "work" included the "creation" of YDL. However, the YDL Wikipedia article states two different companies as being involved in its "creation", not necessarily the subject's work alone. If an organization was involved in this process, then it's that organization along with the organization's leader which should receive credit.  Spintendo  18:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition to lead section v.3

I see the point made by Spintendo. Might I suggest the following replacement instead:

Previous work includes creation of the digital pictographic language iConji[6], and while CEO of Terra Soft Solutions, Yellow Dog Linux.[ref]

The other company (Fixstars) was not involved in the creation of YDL. They did a few updates, but bought a finished product already on the market. In the article for Yellow Dog Linux it calls both Terra Soft and Fixstars "developers", which is confusing since the term usually implies "original developers". Terra Soft was clearly the "original developer" based on [ref]:

https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/56379.html and/or https://lwn.net/Articles/142080/

If that's still a problem, then maybe the claim could be:

Previous work includes creation of the digital pictographic language iConji[6], and while CEO of Terra Soft Solutions, Yellow Dog Linux (later updates for which were provided by Fixstars).[ref]

But that seems to be getting a bit long and convoluted. Astro3.142 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If Terra Soft is "clearly the original developer", then any claim which states that the subject "created YDL" is imprecise. The claim that the subject was CEO of TSS during the development of YDL is already shown on the YDL page, and indeed, is shown in the subject's article as well: "In 1999 Staats co-founded, and for ten years served as CEO of, Terra Soft Solutions... Terra Soft delivered the desktop OS Yellow Dog Linux and turn-key high performance computing (HPC) solutions..."

Regards,  Spintendo  17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused on this Spintendo. So are you saying that adding that claim to the lead section would be redundant, given it's also made in the Career section? Astro3.142 (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying if Terra Soft is "clearly the original developer", then any claim which states that the subject "created YDL" would be imprecise.  Spintendo  04:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit of lead section

I request the last sentence in the lead section be replaced by:

Earlier work includes his creation of the digital pictographic language iConji, released by Over The Sun in 2010.[6]

After Spintendo convinced me why I couldn't add some content to that sentence, I realized what's left is a poorly written sentence that seems just "tacked on". So my suggested edit is all about flow. It just reads better, and it's all supported by reference #6. Thanks to whoever looks at this. Astro3.142 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the claim for this in the IConji article is not referenced.  Spintendo  04:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Spintendo, that's better but still lacks the "flow" I was seeking. That lead section is mostly about what Staats is doing now (at OTS). As written, that last sentence makes it unclear when, or under which organization, iConji and YDL were created. Also, the phrase "work includes that done" could be more descriptive. I would suggest:

Staats's earlier work includes overseeing the development of IConji[6] and Yellow Dog Linux.

Since he was CEO of TSS, I think it's fair to describe his "work" in that manner. Note the added "apostrophe s" on Staats as per MOS:POSS. Thanks again for your continued assistance. Astro3.142 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Astro3.142, you may like to create a new edit request to attract the attention of an active request reviewer ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ToBeFree. I wasn't sure if "discussion" was allowed within an edit request, or if it's just a yes/no type of thing. The template page says nothing about that, so was just waiting to see if I got a response. I was about ready to start a new request as it's been about 10 days now since I posted that last question. Guidance much appreciated. I will start a new request shortly. Astro3.142 (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think your considerations and approach are correct, and if there had been a response, that would probably have been the default way of handling this. However, as there was no response, I think creating a new request is perfectly fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed re-edit of lead section

I request the last sentence in the lead section be replaced by:

Staats's earlier work includes overseeing the development of iConji[6] and Yellow Dog Linux.

Since he was CEO of TSS, I think it's fair to describe his "work" in that manner. The way that sentence reads now is clunky and doesn't flow. Use of the phrase "work includes that done" is unnecessarily ambiguous when it's clear that, as CEO, his "work" must have at least included "oversight". Note the change to lowercase "i" in "IConji". Note also the added "apostrophe s" on Staats as per MOS:POSS. Thank you. Astro3.142 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what it is, about the last sentence, which makes it "clunky" and "not flow". Regards,  Spintendo  23:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hiya Spintendo. Welcome back. What makes it "clunky" and "not flow" is the phrase "work includes that done". And this is not just some aesthetic issue about style. Those four words say the same thing as "work includes" using only two words. But (as you pointed out earlier on this Talk page), that might seem to imply the work was ALL Staats's, which it was not. Making the change I requested fixes that. It clearly puts him in only an oversight capacity (as CEO) and nothing more. And then there's that lowercase "i" and "apostrophe s" to fix. Thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-proposed re-edit of lead section

It's been a week since I posted a response in the previous section. That discussion seems to have ended. Trying again here. I request the final sentence in the article's lead section be changed to:

Staats's earlier work includes overseeing the development of iConji[6] and Yellow Dog Linux.

And here's the reason, hopefully clarified: The phrase "work includes that done" is verbose and ambiguous. Those four words say the same thing as "work includes". But as was pointed out earlier on this Talk page, we don't want to imply the work was ALL Staats's, which it was not. Making the change I requested fixes that. It unambiguously puts him in only an oversight capacity (as CEO) and nothing more. Since Staats was CEO of TSS, I think it's fair to describe his "work" in that manner.

My proposed change also restores the lowercase "i" on iConji and adds "apostrophe s" to correctly indicate the possessive case as per MOS:POSS. Thanks. Astro3.142 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

1. If there is a spelling error in the text, this can be fixed by you in the article, per WP:COIU.
2. There is no difference between work performed on and oversight of work as both include an aspect of performing work. As the work performed here included oversight, the phrase is not ambiguous.
3. Asking to place the mention of this in the lead section is tantamount to saying that the work performed here is very important, as was the subject's role in performing the work. If however, the main thrust of the information is that the subject was CEO at the same time that these developments were created by these companies, then that is how it should be worded — and placed outside of the lead section.
4. I do not actively monitor this article, so questions directed to me need the request edit template to garner my attention. Thank you!  Spintendo  05:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting those typos Spintendo. I'll handle future typos on my own. Astro3.142 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)