User talk:47.188.136.166

February 2019
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Robert Rogers (British Army officer). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Please read WP:REFSPAM. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Pequot War, you may be blocked from editing. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  07:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Dear madam/sir, I don't understand why you consider my additions/edits as promotional material. What I added were secondary sources that are directly & demonstrably related to the articles in question. What makes these secondary sources promotional, but the secondary sources that are already there not promotional? 47.188.136.166 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are adding works by one person, Guy Chet and not adding works by multiple authors. You seem to have an apparent conflict of interest. If in doubt, you may ask to have this reviewed at the COI noticeboard.

Thanks. I'll try again. Multiple authors. 47.188.136.166 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not try again. You have a conflict of interest and are trying to promote those works.

I don't mean to be difficult; I'm genuinely perplexed. I'd be grateful for some guidance. I'm an expert in this field & am trying to offer a perspective that exists in the scholarship but is absent from Wikipedia. Wikipedia now reflects only one side of a scholarly debate. How would the entry on "piracy in the Atlantic World" (which I just finished editing, before receiving your message) get updated without such updates from scholars in the field?47.188.136.166 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:SELFCITE for the particular guideline that addresses this. Your initial additions weren't pursuing the introduction of an underrepresented perspective though. I'll ask for a second opinion regarding the conflict of interest. I believe that your best way forward would be to use your account if you have one (make one if you don't) and then make proper disclosures. Then you ask on the talk page for articles.


 * has asked me to take a look at this. There's no doubt that the edits you made on the 25th were spam, regardless of your intent, as you were just adding your book to a list. Having read this review in New West Indian Guide and this one in American Historical Review I am inclined to agree that the edits you have made to Piracy in the Atlantic World are problematic. As the first reviewer notes, your book is revisionist and the last paragraph in particular seems to suggest that the arguments made in the book are not widely accepted by other scholars. The problem you editing that article is that it is almost impossible for me to establish whether what you have written is being given suitable prominence in relation to other sources on the topic. This is covered by the WP:WEIGHT section of our neutral point of view policy, which is central to how we produce content here. While you've added extra sources, it's not clear whether you've done this just to satisfy the requests above and the review would suggest to me that they may not entirely match with what is in your book. However, I am most definitely not a historian, nor have I read anything about piracy, so I will ask for some input from WT:HISTORY, but for now will be reverting your edits, as we should err on the side of caution. As a new editor, the best advice when it comes to self-citing is don't do it. If you are truly interested in writing an encyclopedia, rather than just adding citations to your own work, then there are plenty of other sources available. Once you are more familiar with how Wikipedia works and what is and isn't acceptable, you may be in a position to cite your own work, but it would still be sensible to ask other editors to review it. SmartSE (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, a COI edit should be a prima facie no-go, because it calls in question the reliability of the sourced material. Let somebody else add it; there are people adding material on some kooky, ridiculous theories already, so the fact yours isn't mainstream won't be a hindrance, & at least then, it can be judged only on its weight relative to the historiographical mainstream, & its relative credibility.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  00:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)