User talk:Ufoneda

Welcome!

Hello, Ufoneda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Braess' paradox has been reverted.
Your edit here to Braess' paradox 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=GByOrp6-RjY&feature=iv&src_vid=u1Gx-9AqNdg&annotation_id=annotation_4012128657l) 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) 16:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Prisoner's dilemma have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Prisoner's dilemma 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=vAKBbqi3TBo) 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) 09:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, Ufoneda. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added. MrOllie (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie, I understand your point, yet the current definition of negotiation has no references. I added a link to a no-profit website which has, to the best of my knowledge, the most complete list of definitions. Furthermore, I did not remove the previous definition. Please let me know how to improve the current definition of negotiation citing the proper sources. Ufoneda (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is a citation on the article already. If you would like to improve the article, feel free to add citations directly - to authors and publications that you have no association with rather than to your own website. If you feel that only a citation to yourself will do for some reason, follow the instructions for conflict of interest editing, which you will find in the links in the above message. MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestion.

Actually I started collecting definitions of negotiation because the definition in the Italian version are really confusing and trying to improve it was hopeless: I tried to provide a definition by experts (not me) and they were deleted. Also, the definition in English page is questionable: no reference. All the definitions I collected have their source either as a book with page or a link to the person who provided his/her definition.

Then looking on "conflict of interest" instructions I would like to "Defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it.". Any improvement of edit is most welcome. If you have further suggestions I will welcome them. Thank you. Ufoneda (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]