VictorPorton

Copy of email sent

Hello Victor,

This email is going out to all those who added a comment on meta:WikiJournal.

The discussion seems to be wrapping up so we'll be sending the information through to the WMF by the end of the week for them to make a decision. If you wish to add a support or oppose vote, it would be ideal to do so in the next few days (no necessity to of course).

All the best, T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Dharmalion76. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dharmalion76 I disagree with you. Namely, I boldly claim that these my recent contributions (except of contributions about generalized continuity in ordered semigroups and continuity, where I really violated a Wikipedia policy by not knowing it) were written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. If you disagree with my last statement, please explain what exactly you disagree. I remind that I claim that your revert of my proximity space changes was unjustified and I will withstand it with all allowable Wikipedia ways. Moreover, I claim that I didn't violate any rules in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the other article fragment you referred to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion does not exist at all. If you disagree and claim that I violated any of these rules, please point the exact rules I violated. --VictorPorton (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP:COI would be the first place you should start. There is a subsection at WP:COIEDIT that pertains to this. You shouldn't be using Wikipedia to promote your own work. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Dharmalion76 I disagree: 1. I saw no statement "You shouldn't be using Wikipedia to promote your own work." in Wikipedia policies. If this statement does exist, please quote the exact page and citation. In my understanding I am allowed to use Wikipedia to promote my own work, unless I violate some other specific rule. I did read WP:COI before editing and find not disallowance for my acts: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. All that I did "in a promotional manner" is that I cited my own work and the last linked quote from the policies shows that this is not disallowed. Also COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It is clearly not disallowed accordingly this statement. Thus in my opinion I did not violate Wikipedia rules and thus removal of my edits would be a violation of the rules. On Wikipedia, editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the neutral point of view policy by being promotional and omitting negative information. By this definition I am not a editor with a conflict of interest (if to exclude the situation with generalized continuity where I do admit my error). Well, I did violate one behavioral rule: I did not disclose my relation to COI. I will correct this error at talk pages very soon. So I have two claims: there was no COI and even if it did exist my edits would be not a violation of the policies. If you disagree, please specify what exactly you do disagree with.

Everyone who has a conflict of interest seems to disagree that they have a conflict of interest. Where did you find a guideline that states you can use Wikipedia to promote your own work? Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I did specify a reason why I disagree that I have a conflict of interest. You didn't responded to this my claim! I did find a guideline that states I can use Wikipedia to promote your own work at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself, and I also didn't find a guideline that I cannot use Wikipedia to promote my own work. --VictorPorton (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Algebraic General Topology. Volume 1, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Algebraic General Topology. Volume 1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Please see WP:REFUND on how to request undeletion. Thanks, — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to False vacuum decay, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply