User talk:Sdurante07

Welcome!
Hello, Sdurante07, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Depression (mood), seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Nomination of Nature exposure sufficiency insufficiency for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nature exposure sufficiency insufficiency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nature exposure sufficiency insufficiency until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, please delete the page. Thank you 

Userpage
The content on your userpage, User:Sdurante07, is not appropriate per the policy, WP:USERPAGE. Would you please remove the draft article from your userpage? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest on Wikipedia
I noticed you've been adding citations from by S.B. Durante to article, which holds a similarity to your username. Whether you are that author or someone with a close association with that person (sometimes common for grad students, etc.), such usernames are typically a sign of a conflict of interest. Please read Wikipedia's guideline WP:COI. When you have a conflict of interest on Wikipedia, you are generally expected not to directly edit articles within that area, declare that conflict of interest on your user page, and instead request edits on the article talk page. Also, please be mindful of WP:OUTING in that declaring that conflict of interest does not mean identifying yourself by name, but simply that you have a conflict of interest in areas relating to S.B. Durante, etc.

I would also suggest reading WP:EXPERT for more information about subject matter experts on Wikipedia. I also include some information on my user page as an example of how to deal with COI as both a subject mater expert and a Wikipedia editor. Let me know if you have further questions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * The COI is absent given I have no pecuniary interest. Furthermore, why does Nature Deficit Disorder get a page based off of 2 books that are not peer-reviewed? In addition it’s arguable NDD, SAD have COI given the broad interest groups. Sdurante07 (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We can keep the conversation here (just use WP:THREAD like I am). When you mention pecuniary interest, financial COI is not the only type as mentioned in the COI guideline I listed above. Promoting one's own work (or someone closely related to your work like an advisor) is also a COI. The expert editors link I gave you also explains this. That includes citing your own papers. What you're running into with the deletion discussion of your article is a separate idea that the article is not considered WP:NOTABLE in that it doesn't have sufficient coverage by secondary sources. Is not uncommon for researchers to use Wikipedia to cite their own work and their own preliminary ideas, but such content is normally removed because that is not what Wikipedia is for. Also in medical topics, we required what we call WP:MEDRS sources. The source you've provided is not in a reliable journal (low impact factor) and we are also looking for secondary sources in the literature. Yours is what we call a primary source because the source is trying to advance a novel idea. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * SDurante I really do hope you read WP:EXPERT, especially the stuff about genre. You basically replicated the Medical Hypotheses paper here in WP.  Writing in WP is nothing like writing a scientific paper.  We summarize secondary sources here.  It is not OK to construct an argument here, like was done in the Medical Hypotheses paper.  You have to put on a whole different "head" when you work here.  Again WP:EXPERT tries to explain this.  You can perhaps also see User:Jytdog/How, which I wrote to try to help get people oriented to working in Wikipedia.  I can't emphasis enough that you need to put aside what you think "scientific writing" is, when you work in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I think after reading Wikipedia’s guidelines, this is a misunderstanding. We can go back and forth but it is blatant that the decision has already been made on NES/NEI continuum.
 * Thanks for replying!  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.  That is how we know who said what.  I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.  Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What do you see as the misunderstanding? Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was referring to my misunderstanding of terms/rules. I am disappointed with your and other editor dismissal of the continuum and unnecessary comments by one editor on the suggested deletion. The paper went through peer review and is quite easy to understand. In addition it is new and would inherently have low citations given that it’s a week-2 weeks old. Sdurante07 (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I am realize that it is difficult when initial efforts don't work out.  I do hope that you consider continuing to learn how Wikipedia works -- although it probably doesn't feel that way, we very much do appreciate it when experts contribute, aligned with the mission of Wikipedia and following the policies and guidelines.  I hope to see you around, and will be glad to help. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. Could you clear this page and talk? Thanks 

== Your submission at Articles for creation: Nature Exposure Sufficiency (NES) and Nature Exposure Insufficiency (NEI) Continuum (January 4) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SeraphWiki 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:Nature Exposure Sufficiency (NES) and Nature Exposure Insufficiency (NEI) Continuum 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:Nature Exposure Sufficiency (NES) and Nature Exposure Insufficiency (NEI) Continuum, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * 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:Nature_Exposure_Sufficiency_(NES)_and_Nature_Exposure_Insufficiency_(NEI)_Continuum Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SeraphWiki&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Nature_Exposure_Sufficiency_(NES)_and_Nature_Exposure_Insufficiency_(NEI)_Continuum reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SeraphWiki (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)