User talk:Samsona

Speedy deletion nomination of Abraham O. Samson

Hello Samsona,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Abraham O. Samson for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElCid, Please do not erase my hard work. I just spend hours uploading peer-reviewed published data. The comorbidity paragraph is important here, and has not been discussed. I kindly request you to un-erase my contribution to Wikipedia. Thank youSamsona (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abraham O. Samson

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.

A tag has been placed on Abraham O. Samson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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 deleted 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. PK T(alk) 00:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write about yourself

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if you write about yourself, do it better. One unreferenced line doesn't make a page.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Diabetes mellitus type 2, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. This edit added speculation using primary research, which is inadequate for medical topics - see WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions

It looks like you've had some template messages here about our rules over the years, but not yet a welcome message or a human explanation. So, much-belated welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your edits related to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on a few different pages and wanted to give you a few suggestions, and the earlier posts on this page added a couple more.

About the deletion posts above from 2017: it's totally OK to write a bit about yourself on your user page (yours is at User:Samsona). In fact it's encouraged to help others understand more about your background and editing interests. What's discouraged is writing about yourself in main space, as an actual encyclopedia article.
Self-citations or repeated citations to the work of the same research group are generally discouraged and can be seen as citation "spamming" or a sign of a conflict of interest. It's better to post on an article's talk page with suggested material or updates, or make a edit request so someone else can review.
We have specific and stringent rules for writing about human health and medicine, including information about the underlying biology of human disease. You'll want to have a close read of WP:MEDRS. In brief, we try to write from secondary sources (review articles, books, etc), stick to expert consensus views rather than research hypotheses, and cite the primary literature only very, very selectively.
There are groups of editors with shared interests in biomedicine at WT:MED and in molecular biology at WT:MOLBIO. These are good places to ask for advice and second opinions from people with experience writing on these topics.
Personally, I find it more enjoyable to write on Wikipedia about topics that aren't directly related to my area of real-world research interest. Even if I avoid citing my own work, I still have strong opinions on my research areas that are hard to neutralize. On the other hand, Wikipedia articles can be great ways to finally read those papers that caught my interest but are sitting around in open tabs or saved somewhere to read later.

Hope that helps! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opabinia, Please do not erase my hard work from Wikipedia. I have uploaded peer-reviewed and published data only, and all my sources are cited. Please help me! Do not punish me! Thank you Samsona (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to these messages. Did you get a chance to read some of the links in these two posts? Please especially read WP:MEDRS. The information you have been adding is "correctly cited" in the sense that you've provided a clear citation to a published source, but the problem is that these sources are WP:PRIMARY and being used for biomedical information, and that's not how medical articles on Wikipedia should be written. You also seem to be adding many sources in many articles by the same person/group, which suggests a conflict of interest (if, say, you are Abraham Samson, or a member of that research group). Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opabinia, I have read the policy, and am happy to add secondary sources as well. I have cited several groups, but mainly Baruh Polis because this is my main source of information. My name is not Abraham Samson, but I do know him. Samsona (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then we have a different problem, see WP:REALNAME. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

after edit conflict

Hello, Samsona.

I see that there is a history on your talk page of you creating articles about Abraham O Samson, and requests not to write about yourself. Could you please take the time to read WP:COI? If you are AO Samson, you should not be citing yourself. If you are not Abraham O Samson of Bar Ilan University, you should not be using their name on Wikipedia to cite articles to the work of Samson AO.

I see also that Zefr referred you to the page WP:MEDRS, which explains Wikipedia's guidelines for citing medical content. We rarely use primary sources, and in most instances, prefer secondary reviews. And yet today:

You added a source whose author was Samson AO, and that was further flagged as being from a predatory journal to Alzheimer's disease. (I reverted that edit.)
You next added to AD a review that complies with MEDRS, of which Samson AO is also an author. That content is not well formatted, and is of questionable use in the article; if you have a COI and want to incorporate your own work, you should suggest it at the talk page of the article in question (in this case, at Talk:Alzheimer's disease).
Next you added a hypothesis, again cited to Samson AO, that is a recent primary study, breaching both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS. I am also going to revert those edits, as one, not entirely helpful and two, breaching MEDRS and NOTNEWS.
More concerning is that today you have made 30 edits to Wikipedia, and all of them seem to cite Samson AO. As do all of your edits that I checked before this year (I stopped checking after the first few).

If your other edits are of the same quality as your edits of today, they will likely all need to be removed, and that is more than I (as one editor) can examine, so I will alert our conflict of interest noticeboard to this issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After both Opabinia and I posted to explain Wikipedia guidelines, you made this COI edit, using a predatory journal, and again breaching WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not erase my contributions to Wikipedia, SandyGeorgia. I am uploading peer reviewed published information. I am not a predatory journal (whatever that is). I kindly request you assistance, to better understand the rules of Wikipedia. Thank youSamsona (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't say you 'are' a predatory journal, they said you are citing works published in a predatory journal. A predatory journal is a sham journal that does not do real peer review and simply exists to collect fees. You must stop citing such sources, and you must stop adding citations to yourself to Wikipedia. You've been doing this for years it is true, but that is because no one noticed until now, not because what you were doing was approved of by the Wikipedia community. If you're going to edit on medical topics, you should also have a look at WP:MEDRS, the medical sourcing guidelines. Note in particular that we generally do not use small studies or animal studies for claims about human biology or health, as I notice you have been adding quite a lot of those. - MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I apologize. Please do not erase my hard work. Thank you Samsona (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not erase all of my hard work. The information I am adding is correctly cited. Thank you! Samsona (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please undo the deletions? Thank you Samsona (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have continued adding this content, you should also read WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. If you continue editing in this fashion, you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am not adding anything else. I read the WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. Please do not block me from Wikipedia. Can you please undo your deletions, and I will add secondary sources. Thank you Samsona (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet seen any addition that you have made that would be appropriate to re-add. It would be preferable for you to slow down and understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines (along with getting your username sorted). In several cases, even if you have a secondary source, the content you are adding is off topic or gives undue weight to material added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These citations never should have been added in the first place, and should not be put back. If you bring secondary sources we would cite only the secondary sources, not the primary source studies. - MrOllie (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]