User talk:Paganinip

Welcome!

Hello, Paganinip, 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 Social network poisoning, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, 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! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Social network poisoning

The article Social network poisoning has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced essay or original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It currently has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social network poisoning

This article is still completely unreferenced. If you can, please return to the page and add inline references with footnotes that can be verified, as soon as possible to avoid it being deleted as a personal essay or original research. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Paganinip. You have new messages at Talk:Social network poisoning.
Message added 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Some editors have raised concerns about Social network poisoning, an article you created. A discussion is taking place at Talk:Social network poisoning, where you are most welcome to make any suggestions as to how the issues can be addressed in order to avoid possible deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sources need to specifically discuss the subject. When you use books, you need to include the page number(s). Exactly what does Charu C. Aggarwal (2011). "Social Network Data Analytics say about "social network poisoning"? What exactly does it say about "considerable impact in terms of knowledge and correlation of data"? I need page numbers and quotes. Please note that you can't interpret a source - you may need to read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. You probably aren't used to policies and guidelines here. And you need to read WP:AGF as your edit summary looks insulting. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Social network poisoning. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. We don't deal with issues like this via email. You can put your case at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social network poisoning page. You should also have used the talk page of the article as requested. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

securityaffairs.co

If you only want to add links to a blog, instead of improving articles, I suggest that you stop, or rethink your approach. bobrayner (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My blog is one of the most authoritative scientific sources on the subject, read it, study it and then return to discuss with me.

Regardless of how reliable it is, Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion and has a specific conflict of interest policy. Here's what I'd suggest (two things):

Add a section to the talk page of the respective articles saying something to the effect of "I wrote an article I think could be helpful to include here but I don't want to add it myself for COI reasons. Leaving it here: [link]"
(Though this one gets a little more dicey depending on how it's done) - Use the blog as a source to improve the articles, not just to tack onto the bottom. If you see a citation needed tag in one of the articles that the blog properly addresses, it might be helpful to include it, for example. Just know that especially since Wiki-PR last year, Wikipedians are hypersensitive to self-promotion, so disclosure of COI at every step is pretty important, as is being here to build an encyclopedia. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Paganinip (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You observation is so stupid and has no sense. I added information that are making a piece of history in the fight to the cyber crime on a global scale and you ban it. Great ... this is democracy .... I'll write about it on my media. I have no personal interest in the story, I don't manage a company neither my blog receive any kind of sponsorship. Unblock me before I'll spread the news. Paganinip (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you want to write about this, go ahead. However, I don't consider your unblock request to be remotely persuasive. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Talk page access revoked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making promotional edits. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]