User talk:ForTheScience

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, ForTheScience. 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note for subject matter experts[edit]

Please read the short discussion on Wikipedia:Expert editors. It explains how this is different from scholarly and scientific publishing, and how it can be problematic promoting your own works. Thank you. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Designating edits as minor[edit]

Read Help:Minor edit to understand when an edit should not be tagged as 'minor'. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where in an article, and other thoughts[edit]

The lede/lead of an article is intended as a summary of key points covered in the body of the article. As an alternative to the edit warring that you and Hemiauchenia are conducting at Barnacle, which could lead to both of you being edit-blocked for a short period of time, I strongly recommend that content and refs be added to the section "Relationship with humans." Citing one's own academic work is not prohibited, but perhaps better to also include references by other researchers and reviewers. Over-citing of one's own work can be perceived as spamming. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ForTheScience please see WP:CITESELF. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Citing yourself may be acceptable but a WP:SECONDARY that cites your work would be much better. If you are one of the authors you also must admit that and not WP:EDITWAR about it. For example doi:10.1007/s11356-021-18404-3 cites doi:10.1016/j.apor.2019.102020 which you were adding to Barnacle. If you are one of the authors and if you Talk about it then I would not object to that and perhaps others would agree also. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block edit conflict. My original note also addressed ref WP:PROMO across multiple pages, in addition to accusations of "racism" for no apparent reason. El_C 15:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the same duration in mind, El C? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was gonna block for a week. But maybe 31 hours will be enough...? Hopefully. El_C 15:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I can't ping! El_C 15:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Oh, ah, do feel free to extend it to a week or re-block if it becomes necessary. I was mainly wondering whether yours would have been indefinite or otherwise very far beyond 31 hours; I'm rarely active at ANI and was a bit afraid of having taken a lower-than-minimal action that prevented a proper action from being implemented. 31 hours vs. a week seems fine to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My identity is revealed unreasonably. Stating nationality where there is no relatable context is racism and discrimination but nothing elses ForTheScience (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. If you wish to craft a sensible unblock request, WP:GAB will help you understand what that would look like. Yamla (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Atilla Incecik moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Atilla Incecik, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thanks ForTheScience (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Atilla Incecik[edit]

Hello, ForTheScience. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Atilla Incecik, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Atilla Incecik[edit]

Hello, ForTheScience. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Atilla Incecik".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ForTheScience! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]