User talk:Wikimoort

AfC notification: Draft:Perseverative Cognition has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Perseverative Cognition. Thanks! &mdash; kikichugirl  oh hello! 21:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Perseverative Cognition (March 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

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


 * Draft:Perseverative Cognition 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 [//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=User_talk:Wikimoort Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Wikimoort reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Perseverative Cognition


A tag has been placed on Draft:Perseverative Cognition requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

SPA / COI / SELFCITE
Hi Wikimoort, all your edits to date have been about Perseverative Cognition which relies almost solely on publications by a single group of authors. This makes your account what we call a "single purpose account" (please see WP:SPA) I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some questions for you below.

Hello, Wikimoort. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Note, and a question
Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and like all scholarly endeavors, disclosure of conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. You appear to have some expertise in this subject matter - if that is so, please do see WP:EXPERT - and especially the last bullet there - and also the WP:COI guideline, in particular, the part about writing about yourself and your work.

Would you please let me know if you have any relationship with the authors whose works you have cited? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your response over at my userpage. And thanks too for dealing with this so graciously.  I am not asking you to identify yourself at all - we take editor's privacy and anonymity very seriously here - but as I wrote above, we are a scholarly project and we do everything we can, within that strict limit of privacy, to ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia with regard to conflicts of interest.

I am sure that you aware of the COI disclosures that are required when authors publish manuscripts. Wikipedia relies on the good will of editors who join our community to voluntarily disclose whatever is necessary for readers who know enough to look at the history and Talk page, to understand if there is a conflict of interest involved. If you have anything to disclose that you believe would help readers understand if there are any conflicts of interest with regard to the article you wrote (and other work you may do here going forward), you can write that on your user page (User:Wikimoort here) for other Wikipedians to find; that is what that page  is for - to tell each other about ourselves, as it relates to our work here.

Also, let me ask you - please do carefully read the WP:NPOV policy, and review the article you created (thanks for creating that!) and please consider how an expert outside your institution would view the article and its singular set of authors, and whether they would find that the article captures not only the mainstream view of the subject you wrote about, but if it cites all the relevant perspectives on the subject, including criticisms, and fairly. If you say "no" to any of that, please consider working on the article further, to broaden the thinkers and researchers that are cited, and the perspectives that are presented.

Finally, you may want to consider joining [[WP:WikiProject Psychology}} - I am sure they would love to have more expert WIkipedians working on articles in the field.

Thanks again for your gracious response. If you'd like to reply, I am "watching" your Talk page, so you can reply here and I will see it. Jytdog (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)