User talk:Paolosalucci

Welcome!

Hello, Paolosalucci, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Universal Rotation Curve, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! KJ^Discuss? 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Universal Rotation Curve

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Universal Rotation Curve requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. KJ^Discuss? 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Stefania.deluca

I noticed several edits by you at User:Stefania.deluca/sandbox. This could give the impression that both accounts are the same person. Is this the case? If so, please be advised that our policy generally disallows undeclared WP:SOCKPUPPETS. In this case, you should declare this both here and on User:Stefania.deluca, and stop using the latter. If not, please state it clearly to prevent needless discussion, as sockpuppetry is a somewhat sensitive issue on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talkpage. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not ! Stefania is a fb-friend who administrates a big group in facebook on Cosmology . We got to know each other and she started with this project on WIKI! I helped her of course Paolo

Please don't forget to WP:SIGN your posts.

Good to know. Could you please give me a contact link for her so I can confirm that?

I'm sorry your first steps here are a bit rough. One problem especially experts like you often encounter here is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. This has two consequences: A) Expertise on a topic is not really relevant, we rely on verifiable reliable sources instead. This means that statements which appear completely obvious to the expert still must be sourced when challenged. Since most of us are amateurs, this also means that much more is challenged than professional writers are accustomed to. B) All conflicts are resolved by consensus. Ideally, consensus is determined by argument, but in practice, taking the long view is often the better course of action. Together, this means you should expect quite a bit of discussion.

On the flip side, there are a lot of editors who are willing to help out, all it takes is asking. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my inability to use the talk I am inexperienced! I want to confirm that I am Stefania De Luca and I had the idea to write this article about the universal rotation curve seen in wikipedia that did not appear again! Stefania.deluca (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we all started out not knowing what we do here. In my case, not much has changed.

Could you please link me to your FB cosmology group, so I can confirm that you and user paolosalucci are different persons? Paradoctor (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is the link of my group of astrophysics [1]Stefania.deluca (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 21:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)21:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)~~== Welcome! == Hello, Paolosalucci, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.[reply]

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Universal Rotation Curve, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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! jps (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks jps I have no objection that you will proof edit or referee the page The Universal rotation curve Stefania has written and I further improved it. Actually, if I knew it was possible, I would have already asked ! Paolosalucci (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Commons

Dear Dr. Salucci, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I noticed that some of the images related to the universal rotation curves were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by User:Stefania.deluca. Commons is pretty strict about copyright. Although they were marked as Stefania Deluca's own original work, most of them seem to come from existing papers and talks. This means they'll be deleted unless correct licensing and authorship information can be established. You may be able to help with this. Note that figures straight out of papers may be problematic because of the copyright assignment policies of the journal. Perhaps you can correct some of the information, or upload similar plots that haven't been published in journals? I also posted this to Stefania Deluca's page, but didn't get a response. Sorry it's quite complicated, especially for images; this is mostly determined by copyright law, which is much more restrictive than usual academic customs. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Im[reply]

Thank you Amble. I guarantee you that I have the copyright of the figures,(e.g. the .gif is a creation I made for Wikipedia) it is likely that I have to correct Commons, and I will do it if I can proceed in this page .Paolosalucci (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Amble (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent deletion

@Paolosalucci: Just wanted to let you know that the page was not deleted. An editor replaced the content with a WP:REDIRECT, this has been reverted. Paradoctor (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the idea is not used by anyone except your group and MONDians, we cannot include it per WP:NOR and the redirect will be in place in due time. Just wanted to let you know that Paradoctor is not correct in the notification. jps (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jps you must be joking !!! one could debate whether the idea needs a page or not, but that none uses it is a big lie ! As I said the URC got at least 1500 citations in refereed journals !! Now I am in paris to give a seminar on URC and others more recent results, just coming back from bejiing where the Chinese academy of science has invited me, completely payed, to give a review on the URC. Next month I will go to CERN for the same thing a --seminar on (also) the URC.Be brave jps tell me who you are and why do you hate me ! The fact of mondians that would use it is ridicoulous, the URC is a big problem for MOND.

Look I am ready to write a paper on the URC just to answer to wikipedia that through jps is behaving as a refereed journal refusing a paper of mine, I have the right to send it to another journal. it will be fun and even more advertising than a (required) humble page on WIKIPEDIA !Paolosalucci (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who else is using it? I could only find a casual reference to it in some lecture notes from http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Battaner/node7.html . Seriously, I don't find any papers that use the URC as you outline it except for affiliates of yours and those who are arguing for MOND. jps (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, Paolosalucci. 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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia: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. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest edits

@Paolosalucci Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Most or all of your recent edits seem to be self promotion. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are also invited to join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy § COI edits. Please give your thoughts about this matter. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 well known papers (more than 1600 citation one) a recent review (270 citation since 2019 ) In the same time I removed twice one of existing reference in that I considered it old . moreoverI added one very recent on the biggest galaxy. Nothing changes about my contribution on the field of dark matter in galaxies that can be seen from wikipedia. I did not change the content Paolosalucci (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other suggestion: please don't mark your edits "minor". On wikipedia the vast majority of edits would be considered "minor" if we were editing a new paper, but the criteria for "minor" on wikipedia is "very unlikely to be controversial". Thus a minor edit is more like a "reference tag was given a name" or an "extra line feed" was removed. Adding or changing references are not minor edits. Thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]