User talk:Giladsom

Welcome!

Hello, Giladsom, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Giladsom, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Aloe vera have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: A History of Religious Ideas (November 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KCVelaga was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A History of Religious Ideas and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:A History of Religious Ideas, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KCVelaga (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Giladsom! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KCVelaga (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna and Elizabeth (musicians) (March 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Anna and Elizabeth (musicians) may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SITH (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:A History of Religious Ideas[edit]

Hello, Giladsom. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "A History of Religious Ideas".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna & Elizabeth has been accepted[edit]

Anna & Elizabeth, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

So Why 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Giladsom. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page New Acropolis, 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 WP:Spam);
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. MarioGom (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MarioGom, thank you for approaching me in this matter, I appreciate the information. It is actually very opportune, as I have a problem with an editor, which I believe has a COI, and I'm not exactly sure on how to act in the matter. This editor (one Derek Camencho), seem to have a personal grudge against the organization New Acropolis, either he is a disgruntled ex-member of the organization, or he knows someone who is. He attacked the organization in various pages, trying to "dig dirt" on the organization, and prevents the addition of information, in an attempt to present it in a very specific light. I do not know how to proceed with this, as he sort of "took control" over the page and edits it to his desire. I have been an editor in Wikipedia for several years now, but I've never gotten into the politics of it. How does Wikipedia respond to "crusading" editors like that? Thank you, Gil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giladsom: As far as I know, Dereck Camacho is an editor in good standing and I see no signs of conflict of interest from his side. However, I think you have a strong conflict of interest with New Acropolis, which is reflected from your edit history since you joined Wikipedia. I would encourage you to read the relevant guideline (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) and the links I posted. If you have any doubt about how to comply with the conflict of interest guideline, please, let me know. Thank you. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom Oh, I understand. So you know Mr. Camacho. Interesting. And you see no conflict of interest from his side? How do you explain the "crusade" against this organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giladsom: Having a position different than yours is not a "crusade" and, in any case, it is not a conflict of interest. Being connected to an organization is a conflict of interest. I would really suggest reading the policy I'm linking, instead of deflecting the issue. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for calling this onto my attention MarioGom. Regarding what Giladsom says, I have never been a member of NA nor I know anyone who has, I am, however, convice after reading different sources that the organization is indeed far-right and secretive. I'm not sure if is a "cult" as some sources say tho, but the material does shows that is clearly white supremacist, homophobic and ultra-conservative. Nevertheless, this doesen't mean I have a "grudge" against it, but I do think it should be properly presented as what it is in the more appropiate matter and with the use of correct references and sources.

I also found out while investigating the issue that a lot of biographies of people related to it, like the founder, include a lot of false information, claims and titles that do not exist or were never given, which I think says a lot about the group.

However I don't think any of my actions violate any of WP's policies and can be reviewed by admins if they wish. NA is by far not my main focus on WP as my contributions easily show, is if any 10% of my work here if no less. Greetings. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dereck Camacho. We have been in the same situation before and achieved some sort of status quo, until you started making changes again. I apologize if I misinterpreted your intentions, but it is clear that whether you know them directly or not, you seem to be on a crusade against them. A simple googling of the organization will cast doubt on it being "white supremacist, homophobic and ultra-conservative". In any case, I'm sure they're not a perfect organization, but to the best of my knowledge, they do a lot of good things.

The one who started the changes was you as can be seeing in the article's history, and in fact I did not revert those who were justify (like changing the part about the apocaliptic cicles as the sources did not said it), however when further changes removing almost all critical information started I think you cross the line there. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2020 (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. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with your custom signature[edit]

You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box. (It might already be empty.)
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)