User talk:Beenhereb4

Hello, Beenhereb4. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add requestedit to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

Another important policy WP:PST that specifically relates to some of your contributions. DMacks (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Beenhereb4 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Hello DMacks, while this policy may in general be not a bad idea, I think that only scientific correctness should be the criterium and I can assure you that all my changes are scientifically sound and help to remove scientifically incorrect or single-sided opinions. Please note that infrared spectroscopy is a special case, since the molecular spectroscopy community has forgotten a lot of things that are state of the art in physics and most of the stuff has obviously written by authors stemming from this community. The process of forgetting went on for about 70 years now, and if you base articles just on highly cited literature then this does in no way make sure that the theoretical fundament is correct - quite the contrary. Please also note that the most important articles I cite are actually a brandnew review article with 16 citations in one year and lecture notes with a lot of original references. If you like I reveal my name - I have about 100 published articles in this field, half of which as first author, and the majority of which on theory and know about what I am writing.
 * If the results are generally important, they will appear in reviews and textbooks. Wikipedia has a persistent problem with authors who somehow think that their work is very special and their insights are urgent.  These same COI authors seem strangely incapable of contributing generally to other technical themes without citing themselves.  Either they know nothing general or their main reason for contributing to Wikipedia is self-promotion.  --Smokefoot (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The main reference that caught my eye has an abstract that begins "We suggest a new modality of infrared spectroscopy termed Infrared Refraction Spectroscopy," published 3 days ago, that you added to WP along with content discussing this modality as if it were some accepted/known technique in the field. Instead, doesn't the ref support that it is a new technique, essentially reported and discussed for the first time in this article? That's pretty much the definition of a WP:PRIMARY source on that topic. Obviously even a primary-research article will contain cites to the pre-existing literature, but that doesn't make it a secondary source on the new topic. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @smokefoot: Let's not generalize, but be very specific to the topics I contributed and the things I changed. If you want to accuse me of anything, let's discuss the particular topic and argue with real arguments instead of generalizations and "theys". If you have anything specific to say about what I changed and is not correct or unimportant then let's talk about this!
 * Specifics: (1) User:Beenhereb4 only makes edits on topics where he also cites himself. (2) User:Beenhereb4 only cites narrow specialized journals vs the more desirable WP:TERTIARY and WP:SECONDARY.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @DMacks: I would have read a little further. If you would have done this, then you would have realized that the new method is based on Fresnel's formulas (about 200 years old) and dispersion theory (about 150 years old). The really new thing is just a new view and use of these two theories, something which could have done 150 years earlier, but simply has not. If you take a contemporary textbook on "my" topics and compare it with one 50 or even 100 years older, you would see that the textbook/review argument is in this particular case simply not sound because of the demodernization that has happened over the decades. Just to give you a further example, Max Planck has already shown in 1903 that Beer's law is just an approximation, but his work has never found its way into the textbooks. On the other hand, what he did was just an application of dispersion theory. So would you dismiss his work just because of this?Beenhereb4 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * One more thing. I just saw that user Notfrompedro has removed all my contributions. I find this very strange in light of the fact that most of these contained derivations which verify (or falsify) themselves and the corresponding text. If this really is policy, it really needs to be discussed.Beenhereb4 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A novel application of old ideas or "finally doing something that should have been done years ago" is still a new thing. The first report that a long-standing explanation is incomplete or even incorrect, or that a mistake/omission was made long ago and has unfortunately become part of the standard lore is still a new analysis. To play devil's advocate, maybe there's a reason a detail was omitted, and maybe the long-standing explanation has other advantages that outweigh the problem you see (or even that there is a flaw in your own reasoning). I'm not saying any of that is true (I obviously did read the full abstract and looked at the ref-list) but it's the reason that WP:SECONDARY is Wikipedia's site standard: independent expert eyes to give a second opinion and evaluate the value of it. Many simple equations in science have a ton of implicit assumptions and imprecision, but are still used because they're "good enough" as long as they're not taken far outside their applicable scope. Definitely lots of important other effects and great science can be done by looking at the extreme cases, higher precision, or additional subtle effects (and WP can certainly include those, with WP:DUE weight, but that doesn't make the main less-precise analysis usable in many cases. By policy, WP does not jump to cutting-edge reports, but lags behind, staying in or close to the mainstream. DMacks (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @DMacks: Ok, I understand and will certainly comply with wikipedia's rules in the future. Just one personal comment that must be allowed: "Many simple equations in science have a ton of implicit assumptions and imprecision, but are still used because they're "good enough" as long as they're not taken far outside their applicable scope" This is a very important statement and the reason that actually brought me to add to Wikipedia, because there is definitely no other law that is more abused than the Beer-Lambert law in this sense, while it was not even understood where it originates from. Anyway, all the best!Beenhereb4 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)