User talk:Haritada

October 2009

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. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Not Wanted on the Voyage 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please revise Wikipedia's guidelines on reference before adding materials. Thank you.

I've noticed that you keep adding this reference back to The Matrix article: Tumanov, Vladimir (2003). "The Matrix Cult." Cultic Studies Review 2 (3)

The following reasons were provided when I removed the reference, so please do not add the reference back:

The first reason provided was: From an anti-cult association, promotes a certain POV, never mind the author's PhD. It belongs to International Cultic Studies Association.

If you do some research, you will notice that as the name implies, the Association is quite biased. The easiest place to look is International Cultic Studies Association on Wikipedia itself, and the statements there are sourced. Please also see WP:reliable under "Biased or opinionated sources" section.

The second reason provided was: Not cited in the academic mainstream, no peer reviews.

Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for further details. I'll quote the reasons that makes the reference unreliable below:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses (The reference you provided is not), generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars.

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. (The reference you provided is not) They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. (The reference you provided is not) Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. (If you search, you will not find that the reference you provided are cited anywhere at all.) Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. (You will not find any peer reviews on that reference.)

So, due to the reasons above, the reference you provided is considered unreliable and is not accepted by Wikipedia's standards.

Also, you provided raw URL as a reference. This is not recommended. Please also take time to study the wp:citation template, and use citation template for websites and fill in the details if you want to cite a web.

P.S. I've also noted that your additions almost always include articles written by Vladimir Tumanov. I would like to inform you that Wikipedia is not a self-advertising platform, and if you are not Vladimir Tumanov, kindly revise WP:conflict of interest before adding materials. Thank you. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Anthonydraco (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Thomas Hardy. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is updating a link to an article already in the Wikipedia entry 'promotional'? The article was no longer accessible. I made it accessible. What's the point of having a dead link? Haritada (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been ignoring warnings about this for years, thank you for responding: all of your activity on Wikipedia has been to add or maintain links to the work of Valdimir Tumanov. You've got to stop doing that - Wikipedia is not a site to use to promote the work of any particular individual. Are you Tumanov, or associated with him in some fashion? - MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Haritada (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer User:MrOllie's question. Do you have an undeclared conflict of interest with Valdimir Tumanov? — Manti core 11:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am Vladimir Tumanov. I now understand the conflict of interest, which I didn't think about before. So please feel free to take the steps necessary to resolve the conflict. I honestly thought that my scholarly contributions to various topics were beneficial. I will no longer introduce my own publications as references in Wikipedia. Best regards. Vlad. 2607:FEA8:2C62:500:C19:76C1:2135:E75 (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]