User talk:Scientistp
January 2024
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)
- 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)
