Gudarticle
Welcome! edit
|
Recent edit to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Also please read WP:MEDRS which explains reliable sources for medical articles. Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Images edit
Thanks for uploading an image. Getting an image to stay on Wikipedia can be a little tough for newcomers. I've been here for years and still don't fully understand it. But the big concern is copyright. You might want to take a look at the welcome I posted above, especially links related to non-free content, image policy, and copyright. You also can type {{Help me}} on this talk page, followed by what you need help with. Someone should come along at some point and advise you. Happy editing! Sundayclose (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
New message from Sundayclose edit
Message added 21:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sundayclose (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The article Nuke Them Till Eternity: An Autobiographical Novel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Self-published; does not meet criteria of WP:NBOOK.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. ... discospinster talk 19:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Giora Ram is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giora Ram (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... discospinster talk 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
February 2020 edit
Hello Gudarticle. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Gudarticle. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Gudarticle|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Praxidicae (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Gudarticle Response edit
1. YES you (Praxidicae) are mistaken! I state it here and clearly: "I AM NOT BEING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EVER BEING COMPENSATED IN ANY WAY OR FORM FOR MY EDITS IN WIKIPEDIA". YES, I am relatively new to this as you can see, so instead of deleting an article I would expect for you guys(the experts) to indicate positively what should I or can I do to modify and update my articles so they would comply with and be accepted by Wikipedia.
2. I do not see any violation to any Wikipedia rule if I take an article from another language appeared in another Wikipedia, translate it and publish it here in English.
3. About the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies
IT states that:"This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (April 2016)"
So I have tried to help and added a referenced paragraph from ADHD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder
BUT it was deleted by Discospinster claiming "attempted promotion of author"
I am sorry, but if adding info from a published book then you should erase and remove "many" articles and references from Wikipedia.
4. About deleting the book: Nuke Them Till Eternity. I don't think that the "criteria for speedy deletion" is applicable in this case, because of the following reasons: According to Wikipedia:"A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: a.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. b.The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. BOTH criteria for notability are satisfied in this case: As stated in the article and in the book : "The novel is constructed from three threads: A chronological factual personal resume, actual historical events, some well known and documented, others never published, and international analytical insights, partly supported by original declassified CIA and MI6 secret documents. The book was reviewed and received written comments by both Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu (http://nuke.imexco.com/publications.html)
5. Deleting the article about the author of the books (12) and the famous Israeli scientist because it was deleted 8 years ago or because of certain "self promotion" reasons are inappropriate in this and maybe in other cases. You can delete all those "elements" from the article without deleting the article itself. This is what unbiased and honest wikipedian would do.
Honestly, I am disappointed from the cold reception. Its easy to delete, its much harder is to build. Accordingly, I would expect from all the experts here to assist in updating and fixing written article(s) without deleting the article itself.
Thanks for all of you who dedicated your time to read those articles.
Gudarticle (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you have no connection to the subjects please explain how you became the copyright holder of this professional photo. Praxidicae (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- If there was ever any possibility of keeping this article, you just lost it with your flagrant lying. You may think that you're a "famous Iraeli scientist", but apparently you also think the rest of us here are complete idiots. It's quite obvious that you are the subject of this article, confirmed even further by your claim to ownership of an image of yourself. You might have had a chance of getting this article up to standards if you had worked with other editors here instead of attacking us and insulting our intelligence. Other notable people have successfully helped shape their biographies on Wikipedia by cooperating with others here. But I suspect you haven't tried that because you know you don't have the notability to accomplish that. By the way, thanks for letting us know that you have placed the article in a Wikipedia with another language. Now we can look for it and challenge it. Note that often Wikipedia has the technology to determine the location of the creator of an account. Keep pushing this and that may just be what happens. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you have no connection to the subjects please explain how you became the copyright holder of this professional photo. Praxidicae (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
