User talk:NecessityBreeds: Difference between revisions
→February 2022: Fixed input error (I think) Tags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED IF THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -->{{#ifexpr: ({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} - 20220204040545) < 5000000000 | [[Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices|{{PAGENAME}}]] | }}<!-- Template:uw-coi --> [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 04:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED IF THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -->{{#ifexpr: ({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} - 20220204040545) < 5000000000 | [[Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices|{{PAGENAME}}]] | }}<!-- Template:uw-coi --> [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 04:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
Hello MrOllie - it's a pleasure to be here. |
|||
I have been meaning to try my hand at editing and contributing to Wikipedia for some time now, especially having now left academia and taken up a role in the private sector. |
|||
It is not my goal to promote anyone, but instead to learn the ropes in anticipation of making more substantial contributions. That said, it does so happen that there are quite a few areas to which specialised references from a couple of niche peer reviewed publications struck me as worthy of inclusion - it just so happened that the references cited connect to a multitude of topics, and were therefore an obvious choice for materials to use as I familiarise myself with the interface. |
|||
It is most unfortunate that my first forays into editing Wikipedia has been interpreted as anything other than constructive, but I trust that anyone who should wish to assess the validity of my edits so far will find that they are reasonable to say the least, and the resources cited are of a very high standard. |
|||
I intend to write at least a few substantial contributions, and I have no intention of deviating from what I have done thus far: I will only add content concerning subjects with which I have extensive experience or expertise. |
|||
I hold a PhD and am a published author of scholarly peer-reviewed work. I know when and where to include appropriate citations, and will continue to do so accordingly. |
|||
I should also point out that the references I have used in these early explorations of Wikipedia's editing functionality are sufficiently specialised that there is a scarcity or total lack of review articles in the literature. |
|||
If there is a problem with my contributions thus far that I have not addressed here, please do let me know at my earliest convenience so that I may correct the error(s). Again, I am here to contribute, develop and refine, not 'promote', and I will happily remove additions I make if they are invalid or otherwise problematic. [[User:NecessityBreeds|NecessityBreeds]] ([[User talk:NecessityBreeds#top|talk]]) 06:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:24, 4 February 2022
February 2022
Hello, NecessityBreeds. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.
Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.
Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.
Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add {{requestedit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.
MrOllie (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie - it's a pleasure to be here.
I have been meaning to try my hand at editing and contributing to Wikipedia for some time now, especially having now left academia and taken up a role in the private sector.
It is not my goal to promote anyone, but instead to learn the ropes in anticipation of making more substantial contributions. That said, it does so happen that there are quite a few areas to which specialised references from a couple of niche peer reviewed publications struck me as worthy of inclusion - it just so happened that the references cited connect to a multitude of topics, and were therefore an obvious choice for materials to use as I familiarise myself with the interface.
It is most unfortunate that my first forays into editing Wikipedia has been interpreted as anything other than constructive, but I trust that anyone who should wish to assess the validity of my edits so far will find that they are reasonable to say the least, and the resources cited are of a very high standard.
I intend to write at least a few substantial contributions, and I have no intention of deviating from what I have done thus far: I will only add content concerning subjects with which I have extensive experience or expertise.
I hold a PhD and am a published author of scholarly peer-reviewed work. I know when and where to include appropriate citations, and will continue to do so accordingly.
I should also point out that the references I have used in these early explorations of Wikipedia's editing functionality are sufficiently specialised that there is a scarcity or total lack of review articles in the literature.
If there is a problem with my contributions thus far that I have not addressed here, please do let me know at my earliest convenience so that I may correct the error(s). Again, I am here to contribute, develop and refine, not 'promote', and I will happily remove additions I make if they are invalid or otherwise problematic. NecessityBreeds (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)