User talk:Buttonsrtoys

April 2022
Hello, Buttonsrtoys. 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.

MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello MrOllie,
 * I read your note with great interest. The last thing I want to do is abuse the Wikipedia.
 * Would you mind providing more detail about why I cannot contribute my peer-reviewed dream hypothesis to the Dreams Wikipedia page? I read the guidelines you listed in your message and believe I am following them. The work I referenced is solely from reviewed articles. True, I referenced my own work, but the guidelines permit that provided it is not excessive. (This is my only reference to my work aside from the Wikipedia page dedicated to my hypotheses.)
 * To your point about work from a small group of researchers, my theory article is cited by 24 other articles, which is respectable for the dreaming community.
 * My contribution to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream was on the page for 10 years and survived edits by expert contributors. I was a bit shocked to have it removed.
 * Thanks in advance,
 * Rich Buttonsrtoys (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of your editing has been to write about your work and add references to yourself to Wikipedia. That is what we mean by 'excessive'. - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop redirecting the emotional selection hypothesis page to the dreaming page. That is not a page on the general topic of dreaming. It is a page specific to my published hypothesis and consequently fits their guidelines. If you do not agree that it is appropriate, please report it to Wikipedia. Buttonsrtoys (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have a page specific to your hypothesis, and as someone with a huge conflict of interest you should not be trying to write or maintain such a page on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a page on the activation synthesis. Are you saying that Allan Hobson should not be allowed to contribute to the activation synthesis page? Or that Revonsuo should not be allowed to create a threat simulation theory page? A lot of Wikipedia readers would welcome both of these contributions. I know I would. Buttonsrtoys (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We would welcome their input in draft space or on article talk pages, but per the COI guidelines they shouldn't work directly on the articles. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please send me a link to the COI guidelines? I'd be surprised if content experts were discourage from contributing to pages dedicated to their ideas.
 * In the meantime, feel free to flag my page as being in violation. However, forwarding the emotional selection page to a page you contributed heavily to is not appropriate. Buttonsrtoys (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:COI. If you have questions, see WP:COIN. Kindly stop edit warring promotion of yourself and/or your theories into the encyclopedia, it is plainly not appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm Nagol0929. I noticed that in this edit to Emotional selection, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. Apologies, I thought I adequately described why I made the change in my comment.
 * I did not remove the content, I moved it to a sub page and added to it. I then converted the original page into a disambiguation page. There are currently three hypotheses in the literature called "emotional selection," which is why a page conversion seemed appropriate. The author of two of the theories (Fellmann and me) had originally been supporting the page for over a decade before it before it was taken down.
 * I saw Fellmann put his work back. Because the three hypotheses are fundamentally different, I thought a disambiguation pages was appropriate. If you have other ideas, please let me know.
 * Also, please please please do not delete/revert this page. I honestly do want to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and believe I am. I you disagree, I'm sure there's a third party Wikipedia body we can bring this before. Buttonsrtoys (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)