Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Nicole Prause has been reverted.
Your edit here to Nicole Prause was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epeBwd_R7pk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an outlet for publishing original research
See WP:NOT#OR. I believe you about Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports. However, that's not the way Wikipedia works. If you cannot produce a WP:RS for verifying your claim, it will get deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have images that verify each of the claims (e.g., email from the publisher, email from the listed editor, etc.). RetractionWatch and other outlets are considering writing reviews of it as well, but I cannot be sure those will materialize. How is best to provide such evidence that verifies the claims? As embedded image? Written elsewhere with images and linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeuroSex (talk • contribs) 17:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- If a WP:RS does not explicitly state what you claim, it has to go. We're simply not a publisher of original research, otherwise unpublished syntheses and so on. Everything that we publish should not be based upon original investigation by a Wikipedia editor, but it has to be cited to a properly published WP:SOURCE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Your editing so far has been very problematic, and you have violated several of our editing policies, including, most importantly, our policy about editing about living people. That is extremely serious and if you try to restore that content you are very likely to be blocked.
Please use the article talk page (Talk:MDPI) and talk slowly about what kind of content you want to add, and what the sources are. Do not write anything, anywhere in Wikipedia about a living person, that is not supported by what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source.
- Probably the best approach would be to present the sources you want to use, and ask if they are reliable for content about what ever person you want to generate some content about. Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: In this user's defense: everybody knows that the two authors of the paper are anti-porn activists, so they are biased (have an agenda), this is nothing new. About the other persons named there: what this user wrote is not offensive to them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice of discretionary sanctions
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Blocked for sockpuppetry
|This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeuroSex. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text |