User talk:Galinakurdina

Welcome!

Hello, Galinakurdina, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Galinakurdina, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Mind control has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 Wikipedia: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 can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia: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. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. You've made the same edit at Talk:Psychotronics several times and it's beginning to be disruptive. Please refrain from adding this sort of commentary to talk pages or articles. –dlthewave ☎ 19:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if the article can not be improved, but just deleted and redone completely, since the article itself is actually nonscientific? What to do in this case? Do you want me to add links to posts on DARPA official sites, on websites of mainstream media about existence of mind and body control technologies, or everything is useless, and you will continue to pretend that Psychotronic weapons do not exist? What should I do? Tell me, please.Galinakurdina (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that explicitly state mind control exists and is being used, covertly or otherwise. Trying to "connect the dots" with patent listings, articles about technology, speculations, and claims is WP:SYNTHESIS, and prohibited by our editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really, no reliable sources? Official videos with demonstration of mind and body control equipment work are not reliable sources? Articles in SCIENTIFIC journals about experiments with existing mind control technologies are not reliable sources? UN Investigation of cases of electronic harassment (or psychotronic torture, or cyber-torture) in the world is not a reliable source? What are reliable sources in your opinion? Could you specify, please? Galinakurdina (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s our relevant policies: WP:RS, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:FRIND. Feel free to post links here on the Talk page to sourced content that you feel qualifies as reliable according to our policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs that mind control technologies exist

These are reliable links about existence of mind control technologies. The articles contain references to scientific treatises:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/university-of-toronto-mind-reading-ai/

https://www.hrl.com/news/2016/02/10/hrl-demonstrates-the-potential-to-enhance-the-human-intellects-existing-capacity-to-learn-new-skills

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5565179/Mind-reading-machine-translate-thoughts-display-text.html

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/ai-predicts-what-youre-thinking/

https://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/newsroom/news_releases/2019/new_technology_uses_lasers_to_transmit_audible_mes/

https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-signals-speech-10660/

http://news.mit.edu/2019/computer-model-brain-visual-cortex-0502

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7560765/Mark-Zuckerberg-wants-brain-reading-device-control-virtual-augmented-reality.html

https://www.ctrl-labs.com/

https://neuralink.com/

https://www.brown.edu/academics/engineering/news/2017-07/brown-receive-19m-engineer-next-generation-brain-computer-interface

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/rice-researchers-given-18m-grant-to-develop-mind-reading-helmet/285-ff16b79c-032f-4c11-863b-5dcddd1d049f

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-05-20

More links to reliable articles and videos you can find on website https://organizationofmindcontrolvictims.com/ Galinakurdina (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think these are reliable, then you are editing the wrong encyclopeadia. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These links contain references to scholar articles and reports about mind control technologies and to DARPA official web site:

https://www.eneuro.org/content/5/1/ENEURO.0358-17.2018

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00034/full

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2560/13/5/056004/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/aaab6f/meta

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28653794 http://www.ccbi.cmu.edu/reprints/Wang_Just_HBM-2017_Journal-preprint.pdf

https://www.osapublishing.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-44-3-622

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37359-z

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190502143450.htm

https://www.darpa.mil/program/neural-engineering-system-design

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-05-20

If User "Roxy the dog" thinks that these scientific works, published in scholar journals, and materials, posted on the official DARPA web site, are unreliable, it is he, who is editing the wrong encyclopedia. Furthermore, he should not edit any encyclopedia. Better, if he does not interfere with any online or printed material. Galinakurdina (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Electronic harassment, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My editing is supported with references to scholar articles, published in scientific journal, and DARPA official website. What reliable sources support your disruptive editing that mind control technologies do not exist? Galinakurdina (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]