User talk:Scientistp: Difference between revisions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)