User talk:Scientistp

January 2024

Hello, Scientistp. 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) 21:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The primary aim of Wikipedia is to enhance and advance knowledge through a collaborative and multifaceted platform. Before removing any contribution, it is essential to consider the quality of the journal in which the information is published. This is crucial, especially in situations where the removal may be motivated by personal biases rather than the content's merit.

It is important to note that the page in question was previously reviewed and endorsed by Richard Bird. His endorsement warrants respect and suggests that the content should be retained. Targeting a specific citation for removal without valid academic grounds does not serve the interests of the academic community. Wikipedia is a collective endeavor.

If you have alternative sources or additional literature that can contribute to the topic, you are encouraged to add them. However, please refrain from removing a respected source without a valid reason. Such actions can be detrimental to academic integrity. Content removal should only be considered if the source is of poor quality or originates from a mediocre outlet.

The paper in question is a seminal contribution to the literature on fiscal federalism. Its contributions are significant and warrant discussion. Please do not remove content out of your biases.

If you are not well-versed in the subject, it is advisable to avoid editing this page. If you know the subject, then focus on enhancing the content by adding more relevant literature, thus demonstrating your competence and knowledge in the field Scientistp (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The primary aim of Wikipedia is not to promote yourself by adding inappropriate citations from multiple accounts. This is a form of self promotional spam and a violation of our policies, as explained above. You will not get to control the page by telling other people to stop editing. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the recent removal of content may not align with Wikipedia's commitment to serving the interests of a wide academic and general audience. Such actions, especially if influenced by biases, can inadvertently harm the platform's credibility and purpose. It's essential to understand that removing content should be a decision based on factual inaccuracies or non-compliance with Wikipedia's standards, rather than personal discretion. Scientistp (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you're edit warring and ignoring my comments about the policy-based reasons why your contributions are being removed. The only 'biases' that are causing influence here are the ones leading you to add these inappropriate citations. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you (the person challenging this citation) an expert in the field of fiscal federalism? It's important to consider one's credentials and expertise before evaluating the relevance and validity of academic work.

The credibility of the cited journal is not only well-established but also transparent for all to assess. This journal, revered for its more than 100-year legacy, boasts a high ranking and is renowned for its rigorous peer-review process. Publishing in such a journal is a significant achievement, underlining the merit and hard work behind the cited work.

Labeling this publication as 'inappropriate' or an 'advertisement' seems to be a targeted effort rather than an objective critique. Such a stance not only undermines the hard work of the authors but also challenges the reputation of a respected journal.

Academic discourse thrives on debate and the examination of diverse perspectives. Therefore, if there are papers that have contested the findings or analyses presented in this highly-ranked paper, it would be constructive to cite them. This approach allows for a balanced representation and enables readers to understand the breadth and depth of the discussion.

Moreover, if you possess expertise in this subject, I encourage you to make nuanced adjustments or add complementary references that enrich the conversation. It's vital for readers to be aware of the vibrant and ongoing debate surrounding concepts such as fiscal gaps and imbalances, including their definitions and implications.

Rather than being jealous of one particular article, please strive to foster an environment that encourages scholarly debate and respects the diversity of perspectives, thereby enhancing the richness and accuracy of the content on this platform. Scientistp (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to engage with the actual concern (citespam and conflict of interest) once again is noted. Throwing up several paragraphs of irrelevances is not a substitute for working within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Not a promotional content or advertisement. Please. I strongly urge a reconsideration of the recent edits to ensure that all modifications enhance the page's value and maintain the integrity of the information presented. Wikipedia thrives on collaborative effort, and I believe that by working together with a shared commitment to accuracy and knowledge, we can make meaningful contributions to this platform. Scientistp (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming us with citations like this absolutely is a form of inappropriate promotional material. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia and not to self promote, find someone else to cite once in a while. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the recent characterization of a particular research paper as 'inappropriate promotional material.' It is essential to clarify that this paper is a significant academic contribution, having garnered influential citations and been published in a highly respected journal. The recognition it has received within the academic community attests to its quality and relevance.

It is concerning to observe a stance that seemingly opposes the acknowledgment of quality research. It is crucial to differentiate between promoting substandard articles and citing work that makes a meaningful contribution to the field. The latter deserves respect and recognition for its academic merit.

Dismissing an article from a top-tier journal as 'inappropriate' without substantiating this claim with evidence undermines the principles of academic integrity and discourse. Such a dismissal not only questions the credibility of the research but also unjustly casts aspersions on the journal's reputation.

I would appreciate a detailed explanation of the basis for the derogatory remarks made against the journal. Understanding the specific concerns or evidence leading to this conclusion is crucial for a constructive and informed discussion. Let's ensure that our dialogue upholds the standards of academic rigor and respects the contributions of researchers and publications that strive for excellence in their field Scientistp (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly encouraged to contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia. This includes editing content or adding rationality to it, particularly if you possess knowledge in the relevant subject area. However, I would advise against the wholesale deletion of content that could be useful, especially if it is not within your area of expertise.

It is important to approach Wikipedia editing with a constructive and respectful attitude. The nature of your recent interactions on the platform appears confrontational and lacks the reasoned approach that is essential for a collaborative space like Wikipedia. Additionally, the use of inappropriate language and a tone that seems driven by anger is not conducive to the positive and scholarly environment we strive to maintain.

I urge you to consider a more measured and collegial approach in your contributions. Wikipedia thrives on cooperative effort and respectful discourse, which are key to its integrity and success as a repository of knowledge. Scientistp (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ollie, you have written this sentence:

Vertical Fiscal Gap as the revenue deficiency arising from a mismatching between revenue capacity and expenditure needs.

Could you please provide a citation for this definition? I am curious about its origins and how it contributes to the ongoing debate surrounding Vertical Fiscal Imbalance (VFI) and Vertical Fiscal Gap (VFG). It’s important that definitions and explanations in this domain are well-supported by academic sources to ensure accuracy and clarity in the discussion.

Additionally, I would like to gently remind you of the importance of contributing content within one’s area of expertise, particularly in complex and specialized topics like fiscal policy. If this topic falls outside your area of expertise, I would recommend refraining from adding definitions or explanations that might not be grounded in established research. This approach ensures that the information provided is both reliable and beneficial to the understanding of the subject. Scientistp (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to gently remind you that implying over and over that someone is contributing outside their area of expertise is plainly a personal attack. Claiming that everyone else is unqualified to remove your contributions is not "respectful discourse" or a "collegial approach". Just stop spamming us, please. Read the guidelines linked for you and follow the process for people with a conflict of interest. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are great. Scientistp (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]