User talk:Elsevier4us

April 2020
Hello Elsevier4us. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Elsevier, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Elsevier4us. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you aren't paid (either by Elsevier or a competitor), please review conflict of interest. You may still need to declare those if you have them. Do note that this is a notice given out of a preponderance of caution, rather than implication that you've done anything particularly wrong so far. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, I am not payed and I have no any commercial interest. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. I just express my personal opinion. That's it. I do not understand why my text was deleted. And is it possible recover my text in Wikipedia Talk? Please let me know. Elsevier4us (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions on Elsevier
Hi, I don't understand why you received the warning above, but your question was removed because of Not a forum. I suggest that you ask your question at an existing forum whose participants have a focus on ethics, for instance https://ask-open-science.org/ or https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues. Nemo 06:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the explanation for the warning above was removed (I've since restored it), but it was more a notice than a warning, given that the username "Elsevier4us" is rather promotional. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with Elsevier and if I named myself as Elsevier4us it does not mean for promotion. It seems someone complained about my section. Therefore it was removed unfairly. It is a very relevant topic to Elsevier. And I did not ask a question as such. I just named a section as a question to make the title rhetoric. Please recover it. Elsevier4us (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a question for Wikipedia to answer. The talk pages of articles are for improvement to the article, they are not not a forum for general discussion. If you have questions, you should try venues made to discuss concerns about academic publishing, like the ones Nemo linked above. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)