User talk:Salomea Sklodowska

Welcome!

Hello, Salomea Sklodowska, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Self-cites

Hello. Given your extensive insertion of the same references in several Mars-related articles, I am wondering if you are the author A. G. Fairén. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a case of self-promotion. David J Johnson (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David J Johnson: No answer, and he keeps inserting references exclusively authored by A. G. Fairén. Although they do seem somewhat relevant, it is becoming quite evident this is an WP:SPA dedicated to self-promotion. Any suggestion on how to proceed? Rowan Forest (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan, I'm not sure that WP:SPA would be the correct venue - although it would be a first step. It seems obvious that these references are blatant self-promotion. Perhaps give them a further 24 hours to answer and if this is not forthcoming, report them. David J Johnson (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello. This WP:SPA single-purpose user, Salomea Sklodowska, seems engaged on self-promotion (WP:SELFCITE) by repeatedly citing references exclusively authored by A. G. Fairén. Although the user has not exhibited other disruptive behavior, and the references seem somewhat relevant, he has avoided to comment on this concern and continues to add such references extensively on several Mars-related articles. While I don't think it is a case for ANI, I am not sure how to address his edits and suspected SELFCITE behavior. Please proceed as you see fit, or advice. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to answer the questions posed on this page(above). It is a conflict of interest for you to edit about your own work directly. There are indirect ways to do so. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I’m Alberto. Answering your questions: (1) I did not know that one cannot add his own references. As you can easily check, I just created my account yesterday, and directly started editing, I’m not a Wiki pro. When I created my account yesterday, I was not first directed to "read and accept“ any set of editing rules before starting editing, so how could I know? (2) I know of several colleagues who have created and curate their own personal profiles in Wikipedia, so I just thought that, as such a perfect example of "self-promotion“ is allowed, adding just a handful of references to my own work (18 edits in 9 different pages is not "extensive“ at all, but just a "handful“) wouldn’t harm nobody; I realize today that what I did is a horrible sin punishable with 1 week of exile (!!). And (3) I didn’t answer before because I don’t live in Wikipedia, apologies. Just this morning found your thread of messages, and you gave me not even 24 h to respond before the Protectors of the Realm vanished me...

That said, ok, now I know the rules. However, some of the edits I made yesterday affected exclusively to content directly referring to my own work, and to my work only. For example, in the page "Planetary Protection“, the sections "Meteorite argument“ and "Proposal to end planetary protection for Mars“ are both outdated and seriously wrong: whoever wrote those, plainly did not know what s/he is talking about. I think I did a good job yesterday editing those sections, so I would be very grateful if you can revise my edits and consider putting them back. Seriously: those sections refer almost exclusively to my own work, so believe me I know what I’m talking about: they are wrong.

Cheers,

Alberto.

I would be willing to remove the block if you agree to use the edit request process(click the link to review) on the article talk page for any changes you feel are needed and involve your own work. If you don't find that satisfactory, you are free to make an unblock request that will be reviewed by another administrator as instructed in the block notice. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to Wikipedia, and while we appreciate experts collaborating, self-promotion and self-cite is not beneficial when editing science articles. I am willing to work with you on the Planetary protection article. It does have problems, as it was created/expanded by a conflictive editor with very strong bias, that also used a lot of WP:synthesis, and quite often misrepresented the information from the sources. You could restructure, and edit and update the article using a variety of reliable sources. I can assist with formatting and "Wikifying" it once daily. If you must cite your own published work, please follow the instructions noted by the Administrator (331dot). I could insert those references, if relevant and unique, as an uninvolved party. Fixing the Planetary protection article this way would get you familiar with the editing process as well as with the WP:Five pillars we use in this environment. Given that history, I am not surprised if your research work was misquoted there, so I understand better where you are coming from. I'm looking forward to become a support for you in this encyclopedia. We do appreciate your work. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]