User talk:Scholarxx

I am one of the authors of Flyvbjerg & Sunstein, added to Hiding hand principle. I therefore suggest that an editor take a look at my change and adjust it as she/he sees fit.

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Scholarxx. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KATMAKROFAN, The wp guidelines ask editors to clearly state possible COI. I did that for each edit by including the following text: "I added data on cost from the Oxford Olympics Study. Please note I am co-author of the cited publication. I therefore kindly suggest that a wp-editor take a look at my edit to check and verify that it’s okay, many thanks." If this is not enough, please let me know what more I can do? Best regards, Scholarxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarxx (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Scholarxx, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Teraproject have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Diannaa, many thanks for your highly useful comments. I'm the copyright holder, and I give permission to use the material on Wikipedia, so there is no violation of copyright.Scholarxx (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC) PS: I really like your edits, as they make the entry more concise, many thanks.[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Bent Flyvbjerg. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Caution for adding spamlinks to webshops where the books can be bought. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, many thanks for this. Is SSRN considered an inappropriate external link? My assumption is that when someone reads something on WP and checks the source (under References) they will want to be able to read that source in order to verify it themselves. That seems to me to make for a better encyclopedia. Am I wrong in making this assumption, in your view? Thanks again! Scholarxx (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a list of books the ISBN number is enough, provided it has been properly formatted using the proper template, since the number is clickable and leads to a search page, that in turn leads to a number of library sites, etc, making it possible to verify that the book exists, who the author(s) is/are etc. Which is all that needs to be verified in a list of books, such as the list in Bent Flyvbjerg that you added the external links to. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, got it, many thanks for clarifying. Scholarxx (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Great job on Uniqueness bias - keep it up! Meatsgains^(talk) 18:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Hi, and a belated "Welcome!" to Wikipedia. ;) Always nice to see new Wikipedians. I noticed that you've marked quite a few edits of yours as minor that shouldn't have been. You might want to take a little time to review WP:MINOR, especially § When not to mark as minor changes.

Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Uniqueness bias[edit]

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 Uniqueness bias requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BT Professor of Major Programme Management[edit]

Hi there! I saw you recently started the article BT Professor of Major Programme Management. It's great to see someone interested in improving coverage of academia on Wikipedia! However, in this particular case, since there is so little published work concerning the professorship itself I think it's best if it redirects to Bent Flyvbjerg for now. Perhaps you could add in his article that in 2007, *insert person or organization* gave funds to setup the BT Professorship etc. and he is the first and current holder of that position.

As you may have encountered elsewhere, while Wikipedia has articles on lots of topics, it does not seek to cover all topics. Over the years the community of editors have decided the scope of the encyclopedia which is generally laid out here. In particular, we only create articles on topics that are the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." While Bent Flyvbjerg certainly seems to pass that threshold, it wasn't clear to me that the BT Professorship of Major Programme Management did. It could just be that I missed some important sources. If you feel that way we can discuss it here or at Talk:Bent Flyvbjerg. If you have other questions as you settle into editing here, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Regression to the tail (January 25)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chicdat was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Regression to the tail and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Regression to the tail, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scholarxx! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond - managing your COI[edit]

Hi Scholarxx. Could you please stop editing articles directly, and work from edit requests instead? You've responded at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_108#Scholarxx in the past. I'd like to avoid further intervention if possible. --Hipal (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Regression to the tail[edit]

Hello, Scholarxx. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Regression to the tail, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Regression to the tail[edit]

Hello, Scholarxx. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Regression to the tail".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]