User talk:ElenaMilova

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, ElenaMilova, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the day...

Lead Section Size

The lead section of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, generally appears between the lead section and the first subheading.

Rule of thumb: If a topic deserves a heading or subheading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.

The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide a preview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more. The following table has some general guidelines for the length of the lead section:

< 15,000 characters	medium size	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Summary essay:

WP:CREATELEAD

Speedy deletion nomination of Life Extension Advocacy Foundation

Hello ElenaMilova,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Life Extension Advocacy Foundation for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of employment

Hello ElenaMilova. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Life Extension Advocacy Foundation, and that 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:ElenaMilova. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ElenaMilova|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote format and reliable sources

Hello Elena. I noticed you were adding sources to the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation article but they weren't quite formatted properly. Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citation templates will give you some guidance on how to add citations that are written correctly.

Also, please have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Medical topics are subject to particularly careful scrutiny; sources of dubious or unknown provenance, primary sources and self-published sources made from user-generated content may be rejected. That is why I repeat my advice that you limit your edits to this topic to suggested changes on the talk page. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drm310! Thanks for your kind advice. I will double check the formatting of the citations. I added one citation from TED.IDEAS and another one from a Russian edition telling about our stance in pro-longevity dialogue; the other reference, namely, our blog, was already there, I only moved it down the list and changed the name for its link. I must note, that our blog is not giving medical advice (we are not a medical service provider and are not licensed to do that), it is telling about the scientific research in the field of regenerative medicine and links to the original scientific articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and placed in Pubmed. There are interviews with the researchers, a good share of them about studies on aging in mice or cells. There is also an ideological content, such as why we should consider aging a disease, what is the opinion of the academia on this issue. In any case, your warning is greatly appreciated. I will read the materials suggested and will try to be most careful. ElenaMilova (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Life Extension Advocacy Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Life Extension Advocacy Foundation 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Extension Advocacy Foundation 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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Life Extension Advocacy Foundation Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Life Extension Advocacy Foundation Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]