User talk:Jonatan fazi: Difference between revisions

Hello Jonatan fazi. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia’s mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a “black hat” practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jonatan fazi. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jonatan fazi|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion, or advertising again, as you did at Curcumin, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This website is advertising spam. If you continue to use Wikipedia to promote a business, you will be reported to admin for blocking. Zefr (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you’re referring to. The data I reported is part of the bibliography of a (highly referenced) book I read. Furthermore, the addition I made about curcumin perfectly complemented the text. However, I acknowledge your decision and will continue to offer my support in correcting it based on my expertise for all users worldwide. Thank you Best regards Jonatan fazi (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Special:Diff/1323880754, you stated several claims about physiological effects of curcumin that are nonsense, and you cited a vita365.it source, which is a commercial spam website. It’s that simple.

For any content referring to human health, whether in science generally or specifically in Wikipedia, sources must represent facts accepted by the scientific mainstream, WP:MEDSCI, and adhere to WP:MEDASSESS for quality of evidence. Zefr (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. But it links to a book written by a world-class researcher. It’s been recognized as one of the leading texts connecting nutrition and epigenetics. Since I study these topics and downloaded it, I’ve made it appropriate to link to the original source to cite it. Anyway, thank you for the feedback. Next time, we’ll try to be more careful. Jonatan fazi (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Pier Mario Biava, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. While you may be adding content, you’ve deleted formatting and reference, so it’s a net negative to the article. The bad changes are so numerous that it’s hard to see what you’ve added. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea for you to request changes at Talk:Pier Mario Biava and get assistance from an experienced editor, so that your additions are formatted properly. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made accurate changes to Pier Mario Biava’s searches, but now it still says Novacell, which is a cosmetics company. What should I do to make the changes correctly? I also removed website references. What should I do to make the changes? Thanks. Jonatan fazi (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll need to describe, clearly, the changes you’re trying to make. Are you saying that we should remove the statement that he founded Novacell Biotech Company entirely or change the name of the company he founded? —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Novacell sells supplements and cosmetics. The name is correct, but he’s a world-renowned researcher, and this comment undermines him. His important research work should be highlighted. Can I write the changes I need to make in this chat? Jonatan fazi (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. We don’t remove content because it might “undermine” a subject. —C.Fred (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is the son who runs Novacell. He is a researcher and has done enormous work that is not reported. Furthermore, he founded a team of excellence and with his director, Dr. Stefano Ciaurelli, they gave reports to the European Parliament and the Senate of the Italian Republic. This is correct information not reported. He had deleted the article for me with all the correct bibliography. However, I will proceed as you told me. Thank you Jonatan fazi (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The better place to make the edit requests is Talk:Pier Mario Biava. —C.Fred (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried clicking on the button you suggested and added the information. I hope they go well this time. Thank you. Best regards Jonatan fazi (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just dump the information there, you need to describe the change there. Go for smaller, incremental edits, where it’s easier to say what source specifically supports the change.

Start with one sentence. What is the most important sentence to change in (or add to) the article, and what is the reliable source that supports the change? —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ok thanks. I tried to follow your advice and added a first sentence to the Biava talk. I’m waiting to see if it’s okay. Thank you Jonatan fazi (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve replied to the request: you did not provide any independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What mean indipendentemente if I give you reference approved from board of important international scientific journal. What mean independent in actual article there is some reference from pubmed. What differences?

Thank you Jonatan fazi (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independent means not authored by the subject. Biava was an author of all the papers you mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand what you have requested and my changes are based exclusively on scientific concepts that I have acquired and am studying. Jonatan fazi (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case please read WP:SCIRS. Scientific information needs to come from reviews, not from websites that sell supplements. SmartSE (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I found the bibliography in the text of the site very rich in ideas. Anyway, thank you for the feedback, and I’ll be more careful next time. Thank you Jonatan fazi (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]