User talk:Rashidkia

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Rashidkia, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Talk:Windows 7 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 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 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 Copyrights. You may also want to review 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 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 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 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 Translation. See also 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. ''Please do not copy and paste charts from articles. These are considered copyright violations.'' Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, Rashidkia. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add requestedit to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rashid. I came to this page to let you know about some problems with your editing. Arriving here I saw the above messages, and it is evident that there is some overlap between what I intended to say to you and what has already been said, but perhaps even so it may be helpful to collect together the various issues.
 * All of your editing so far has consisted of attempts to publicise your own work. You should read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest and policy on promotional editing; both of those give reasons why you should not be editing in the way you have.
 * You have already received a fairly complex message about copyright, with links to pages giving further detail. However, it may be helpful to give you a simple summary of the main points. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose wahtever, commercial or otherwise, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. Few authors are willing to license their work for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Therefore, Wikipedia policy does not permit posting of content copied from other sources without such proof. Note that Wikipedia's copyright policy is much more strict than copyright law requires, in several ways. For example, the onus is on the person providing copied material to prove that they have the right to do so, not on the copyright owner to request take down. Also, material which has been published somewhere else with a copyright notice which is less liberal than Wikipedia's licensing terms, is extremely unlikely to be accepted.
 * Wikipedia is not a free web host for holding material for one's own use, unrelated to work for Wikipedia. That includes use of Wikipedia to store or prepare drafts for use elsewhere.

I hope those comments may help to clarify various points for you, but please let me know if there are any details of what I said that needs further explanation. JBW (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Your accusation is both wrong and disrespectful. Citations form Wikipedia pages are worthless. Thus journals does not count them at all. Only academic citation are useful for a journal or an author. Therefore, for you to understand the academic publications better, I should repeat that citations from Wikipedia are useless. And Wikipedia articles are neither academically reliable nor citable. I intended to add related academic information to Wikipedia. I won't contribute anymore. The articles that I cited in the Wikipedia page were not my articles. It is good to learn being respectful! give it a try! I won't add even a dot to Wikipedia articles. kia 08:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)