User talk:Carey.Morewedge

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Carey.Morewedge, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Mere ownership effect has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of this and have amended the sections accordingly. Carey.Morewedge (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

COI
You appear to be inserting WP:UNDUE content into a variety of articles. It appears that you are the author of the cited references. Please read Wikipedia's guideline concerning conflict of interest and the associated help page at WP:PSCOI. SPECIFICO talk  17:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If you continue to add UNDUE content sourced to your own publications, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please remove the content you just reinserted at Digital goods. SPECIFICO talk  00:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I am merely summarizing the abstract of a peer reviewed scientific article on this topic - the first to empirically test the value of digital goods by comparison to physical goods. If you can find fault where 5 world experts could not, I would sincerely appreciate learning from your expertise and experience. Otherwise I find your censorship of the content to be unjustified. I have notified the conflict/dispute resolution team of your concern and my response. Carey.Morewedge (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CM: A general rule for Wikipedia is "Please don't bite the newbies." There is also a counter-rule "Newbies should not bite experienced editors." (In this case, an editor who has made >20,000 edits to Wikipedia over many years.) When there is a dispute about use or interpretation content it should be discussed on the Talk page of the article in question. The hot button you have pressed is a common problem - experts in their field want to improve a Wikipedia article by adding the newest findings, which may or may not include citing their own work. A more accepted approach is to find review articles written by other people, and paraphrase content from those. Too often, primary research (like yours) can be disputed by other primary research (from evil scientists who have the temerity to disagree with you), and so Wikipedia is willing to be a trailing indicator of what is true. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

David, thank you for sharing your perspective. Review articles in my field are usually written 5-10 years after the most exciting work is done. As a result they tend to lag far behind the edge of science. Perhaps you could clarify if the point of Wikipedia to resemble a textbook, summarizing what several labs have confirmed and taking a conservative approach, or to represent the most recent scientific developments and correct them when they are proven wrong? Carey.Morewedge (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you now see the distinction. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and though not resembling textbooks must wait until the material is confirmed. Publishing material that might need to be corrected later is the role of journals and of magazines like Discover. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose so, but in science nothing is ever confirmed. It's merely yet to be proven wrong by oneself or other researchers.Carey.Morewedge (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CM: A minor thing - if you are continuing a conversation in Talk, add one more : at the start than in the last entry, so as to farther indent. And to concur with StarryGrandma, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator. This does not mean not mutable. For example, within medical topics there may be a systemic review or meta-analysis that is cited as current truth. Several years later, with new clinical trial research published in the interim, a newer meta-analysis is published. Wikipedia editors will discard the old and replace it with the new. As I recently did for benefits (?) of omega-3 fatty acids for rheumatoid arthritis. So as much as one wants to share the newest research - not here. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

August 2019
Hello, Carey.Morewedge. 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 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.

GermanJoe (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is all peer-reviewed scientific work. I understand your concern, but these findings have been vetted by the scientific community and are published in high-impact journals in these areas.


 * The added research articles have been published in May and July 2019, so it seems unlikely that they have been extensively discussed and reviewed in the wider academic community. As has been explained in the first "COI" section above and on the Teahouse, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia focusses on established knowledge that has already been widely discussed and cited by other experts, and is generally accepted as scientific facts. New, ongoing research that is still in flux should be published and discussed in academic journals and conferences instead. Secondly, almost all of your recent citations are using your own work. Please try to use a broad range of reliable sources (ideally review articles) if you intend to continue contributing, not almost exclusively your own research articles.


 * These points are mostly meant as general advice about this aspect. If you would like to propose or discuss a specific article-related edit, please use the article's associated talkpage instead (generally at ). Per WP:SELFCITE, I strongly recommend to suggest further citations of your own work on such talkpages. If you have further questions about editing on Wikipedia, please feel free to ask at WP:Teahouse, or WP:COIN for specific COI-related issues. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

Requesting your visit to article Draft:Irrational beliefs and please do help expand if you are interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)