User talk:Ildar2013

Welcome!

Hello, Ildar2013, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wendeen H. Eolis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

has been a pioneer and an activist in the recruiting-executive search industry for 4+ decades. I(n 1974 she was the first woman and youngest president of the Association of Personnel Consultants

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware

I hope you don't feel that you are being picked on, you're not.

please read these FAQ

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing

Images from http://eolis.com/content/wendeen-h-eolis

and again this warning under TERMS OF SERVICE/ COPYRIGHT seen here http://eolis.com/content/terms-service
Because the images are not marked for freeuse, they therefore must not be used.

even if you own the rights to the photo they haven't been released be you. Well wishes. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 05:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jay Neveloff

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jay Neveloff, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

potential conflict of interest

Hello Ildar2013. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Nieca Goldberg. 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.
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, 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:Ildar2013. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ildar2013|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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Mduvekot (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mduvekot:, thank you for your message. I wanted to let you know that I do not know Dr. Goldberg and was not compensated for writing this article. I have no connection to Dr. Goldberg in any way, except for asking her to provide a photo for a possible Wikipedia article. I am interested in writing articles for possible inclusion in Wikipedia because I like to read and learn about biographies. I am a pretty good researcher and interested in digging into details for proof. Also, as an FYI, I got interested in Dr. Goldberg when I saw one of her books, "Women are Not Small Men" and was amused. Then I found out she was not in Wikipedia and began to learn more. I thought she was notable and deserved an article on Wikipedia. I would appreciate advice how to improve this article and make it appear more neutral, as I might like to write more articles in my spare time. Thank you in advance, Ildar2013 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ildar2013, thanks for clarifying. I have removed the Conflict of Interest tag. Mduvekot (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Charles "Trip" Dorkey III for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles "Trip" Dorkey III 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/Charles "Trip" Dorkey III 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTIFICATION

Deletion has been requested for the article Nieca Goldberg

I am told - and it appears from the page's history- that you are the author of the Nicea Goldberg page. As per Wikipedia protocol I am notifying you that I have requested that this page be DELETED. There are several reasons for this. There were several past complaints about the page on its Talk Page that were never addressed. Of more importance to me is the question of whether Dr. Goldberg is a notable person who deserves a Wikipedia page. She has not been responsible for any major advances in medical science that I can see. She is similar to the vast majority of academic cardiologists practicing in Manhattan. The fact that she is a practicing physician makes me wonder if there is an element of conflict of interest here even though I am told that you denied this in the past. Nicodemus (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oldsilenus proposed deletion by PROD, which is a fast process. Another editor reversed that, and recommended the slower "Article for Deletion" process, which has not yet been initiated. I see from your Talk page that you have already been through the AfD process (C. Dorkey) and had the article deleted. On a separate, but very important note, a software program that searches for copyright evaluations suggested that some of the text you created for the Goldberg article was copied verbatim or near-verbatim from other sources. If true, please go back and rewrite the content in your own words. Copyright violation is a high priority no-no for Wikipedia. If not remedied, this alone is grounds for deletion of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decision (Aug 1) was to Keep. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments Above About Deletion Process

I have initiated the AFD process this morning. I have been asked to notify you and I am doing so. I do not not know what I could have written that was copied from other sources other than bringing to the attention the complaints of prior editors. My text on the talk page has been removed as the article itself has its own deletion discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsilenus (talk • contribs) 12:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldsilenus mistook a caution that you may have violated copyright as applying to him. Since explained, and the text on the article's Talk page restored (editors are not supposed to ever delete prior content on article Talk). Nieca Goldberg is up for AfD. For you to comment there is appropriate. In my opinion, the article still needs work, but all-in-all is Wikipedia-worthy. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

Hi Ildar2013. You were asked above about conflict of interest and paid editing and you said no. Based on your editing this is not credible.

There is a place for paid editing and freelancing in Wikipedia, but you must disclose that you are doing this, and there are extra steps that we ask you to do. I can walk you through that stuff, but the first step is disclosure.

Would you please reconsider your answer above? Please do reply here. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ildar2013 has not made any contributions to Wikipedia since April 2018, and may not be aware of the recent flurry of comments and actions. (Note that the denial of COI was back in 2017). David notMD (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]