User talk:PolivaOren
November 2015[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Origin of language has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Origin of language was changed by PolivaOren (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951094 on 2015-11-10T21:42:16+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Origin of language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LjL (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of interest?[edit]
You appear to have a close connection to the subject of the article Origin of language that raises concerns about 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. Anyone with a conflict of interest must avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your family or colleagues, 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,
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
LjL (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
To be quite clear: I'm going to report you for edit warring and obvious conflict of interest unless you remove the contentious, completely unsourced content (describing an obscure research paper that "Oren Poliva", someone who happens to have the same name as your user name here) from Origin of language immediately. LjL (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]
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. LjL (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Help me![edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I recently edited the page 'origin of language' to include a model i developed in the topic. The model was published in a peer review journal. My section was removed due to conflict of interest. What is the acceptable route to get my model on wikipedia?
Thanks ahead
Oren
PolivaOren (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- You should post on the article's talk page with the content you want to add (plus any relevant references) and use {{edit request}} to (as the name suggests) request that someone take a look at the situation. Primefac (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of From where to what language evolution theory for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article From where to what language evolution theory 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/From where to what language evolution theory 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. LjL (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome...[edit]
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry you have run straight into the thick end of a lot of process and procedure; these are designed, of course, to stop a lot of silliness (perpetual motion machines, systems of divination, ...) and vandalism, and are singularly ill-adapted to cope with experts and researchers. In a nutshell, there is an inherent clash of worldviews between expert academic research (you know what you are saying by virtue of years of study, knowledge of experimental findings, qualifications, etc) and the Wikipedian (all editors are theoretically equal, additions are based on cited sources, ...). We know it's a problem, and we are supposed not to "bite the newbies"; we know that's a problem, too.
That said, the additions you made do unfortunately cross the line in the sand here. That does not mean you are not valued, just that you need to become familiar with the ropes first.
You may find the experience of other researchers useful - for example, Good practice on CoI for academics. You are also free to ask other editors, me included, for advice. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with this advice. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own ideas and research (please wait for others to pick up on them), but you can use your knowledge and interest in the origins of language to help improve Wikipedia's articles. You need to rely on multiple published reliable sources rather than a single opinion piece or primary research paper. Fences&Windows 21:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
== Welcome! ==
Hi PolivaOren! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
The rule that affects you most as new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.
This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.
The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.
Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)