User talk:Researcher1988
Capital letters
I see that you have added relevant and interesting facts in several articles about food, also giving sources for your additions. Good work! However, it would be great if you could try to learn when to use and especially when not to use capital letters in English language prose. Keep up the good work. Regards! --
- Sol 159.255.48.254 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
MOS:Ethnicity
Per MOS:Ethnicity, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Feel free to start a discussion, on relevant talk pages, to gain consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Why This is not the case with Shakespeare and Goethe? Both have cited Ethnicity Before their names in the lead. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Those articles have correctly stated the subject's nationality. See ]
Civility
]
Masters theses
Only PhD dissertations are considered reliable sources; Masters theses are not. Please do not use Masters theses (yours?) to source
- @[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]
- one of these papers by Mario Ferrero is a research paper and not a master thesis which has been published in various sites.
- the other by Jason Heckert is a masters thesis but is published and thus should be considered reliable sources. besides, Wikipedia does not mention that master thesis are not Reliable. it says: "masters dissertations and thesis are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant Scholarly influence." Researcher1988 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's your fault for providing only a link without expanding the details of the citation. Your edit summaries said it was a thesis, why should I second guess you? Skyerise (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyerise
- I will re-Add the other source as well. the Master thesis by Jason Heckert has been published in various websites ad thus had significant Scholarly influence. so it can be considered a WP:RS Researcher1988 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's your fault for providing only a link without expanding the details of the citation. Your edit summaries said it was a thesis, why should I second guess you? Skyerise (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
Since one thesis was spammed in multiple places, Imma gonna have to assume it was yours. Best not to give the appearance of having a conflict of interest, when other sources exist.
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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. Skyerise (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with conflict of interest. I simply find the source on the Internet. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
April 2024
Your edit to Zoroastrianism has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. GretLomborg (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zoroastrianism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
A courtesy note regarding Wikipedia culture
Hi there. Please take this in the mode of friendly and helpful advise. As a matter of courtesy it is generally preferable to use they / them pronouns for all editors unless they disclose otherwise in which case we should their preferred pronouns. In the case of VFF they state on their userpage that they prefer they / them specifically. It is generally good courtesy to comply in these cases. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- ok. no problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223
- Obviously you are mistaking here. the user I'm interacting with tried to vandalize the Zoroastrianism page several times in the past. he had very little knowledge of Zoroastrianism or Religious subjects related to this topic, yet he wanted to edit the page according to his own interpretations, without listening to our arguments or accepting the sources we provide.
- It was 4 months.
- and now, you are reporting me, who wanted nothing but to protect the page from Vandals? Researcher1988 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- You treating edit conflicts as if it were vandalism is a root of the problem. I suggest you reserve further comment for the AN/I discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223
- Its not edit conflict. it was Vandalism. the user wanted to add misinformation and material not supported by sources to the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- You treating edit conflicts as if it were vandalism is a root of the problem. I suggest you reserve further comment for the AN/I discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Bare URLs as citation
Please stop using bare URLs as citations. Please learn how to use the {{
- @Skyerise
- why a full citation? what's the difference? can't we use normal references? and why not? Researcher1988 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- You call yourself "Researcher" and you don't know that? A "full citation" is a "normal reference" to a researcher. The rest of us didn't just make it up as a cute user name. Would you publish a paper with only a bare URL as a reference, "Researcher"? Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyerise
- now you are trying to be funny, but you can't. ok.
- I know what a full citation is; tell me why not a normal reference? Researcher1988 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Full citations are required for an article to advance to Good Article status, and it's nobody's responsibility to clean up after you. You are responsible to make your additions up to code. Since this is a former good article, your additions and citations must live up to good article standards, which do not allow the use of bare URLs. It's also courteous to your fellow editors that they be able to see what you are citing in the diff without having to click through to the article, then find the url, then click through it to see what you cited. You might notice that no other citation in the article uses a bare URL and no other editor is adding them either. You are there to get the article back to good article status, aren't you? Skyerise (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- You call yourself "Researcher" and you don't know that? A "full citation" is a "normal reference" to a researcher. The rest of us didn't just make it up as a cute user name. Would you publish a paper with only a bare URL as a reference, "Researcher"? Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)