User talk:Dour24

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Dour24. 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 COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * 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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(Possibly) citing your own research
Hello Dour24, as mentioned by above, editing with a possible "conflict of interest" is restricted on Wikipedia. It seems that the vast majority of your edits consist of citations to one author - in case you have a personal connection to this author or are citing your own research here: please make sure to read WP:COI (especially WP:SELFCITE). Occasional citations to an editor's own research are OK under certain conditions, but extensive usage of such citations, especially for secondary information and mere passing mentions, could be seen as a form of cite spam and is generally frowned upon.

Contributions of topic experts are greatly appreciated to improve the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia articles, but you should
 * clarify and disclose a possible personal connection to the added publications.
 * use a more diverse range of sources from other uninvolved authors and publications for your contributions.
 * avoid adding self-citations for secondary or tangential information, or for mere passing mentions of such publications.
 * suggest citations of unclear encyclopedic value or relevance on the article talkpage instead of adding them yourself.

I hope, the above information and tips are helpful - they are not supposed to discourage further contributions but to point out a few issues with some of your previous edits (and COI-editing in general). Please read through the linked guidelines and feel free to ask if you have any further questions. You can also ask at WP:Teahouse or WP:Help desk to get additional advice from other volunteer editors. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Decision support system, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Task-invoked pupillary response. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to peer-reviewed research that includes inputs by many scholars. I try to include a wider body of peer-reviewed references in my next edits.

Grayfell, I noticed you reversed all my edits of the last two or three years. Yes, I was basing my edits on academic research that involves my work and work of others. I was not referencing simple block posts, but research published and peer-reviewed to improve these wiki-pages (and not only mine). I used references without my involvement as well. If you undo the reversals of my edits I can enhance these sections further with academic references without my involvement. I am quite disappointed at the moment. Please let me know how I can proceed. Regards Dour24 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears that almost all of your edits have included your own work as a citation. Most of these edits have only included your own work, and some have added your work to a statement which was already in the article, which is a form of spamming. Many of these sources you've added are WP:PRIMARY sources, and some of these claims arguably fall under WP:MEDRS. Further, some of the statements you have added have been vague statements which don't really provide any useful information, which appear to have been added as a pretense for including the references.


 * I've been posting on your talk page, along with another editor, in the hopes that you would slow down and read what we have been trying to explain to you. Take a close look at the links posted above about editing with a conflict of interest. For future edits involving your own work, go to the specific article's talk page and post a suggestion for what changes you would like to see made to the article. You may find Template:Request edit helpful. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, I see. I have not noticed the messages on my talk page previously. Sorry for that. When I was trying to respond directly on your talk page, I did not find a way to do so (probably my lack of knowledge). I will see how I can contribute in the future better considering the guidelines of the community. I only did edits to topics were I consider myself being a subject expert, but understand that references should be to a wider range of sources. Template:Request edit may be useful. Dour24 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you for explaining this. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, you may find Help desk or Teahouse helpful. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emotionally Intelligent Information Systems (October 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:Emotionally Intelligent Information Systems 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:Emotionally Intelligent Information Systems, 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Emotionally_Intelligent_Information_Systems Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stuartyeates&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Emotionally_Intelligent_Information_Systems reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Stuartyeates (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Emotionally Intelligent Information Systems


Hello, Dour24. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Emotionally Intelligent Information Systems".

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 and remove the, , or  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. DannyS712 (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)