User talk:Face Cat

COI/WP:PAID
You appear to be here to promote a specific individual.... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * hi! thanks for your feedback. In the edits I've made, I have contributed references to the "further reading" section to peer-reviewed, academic scholarship. I'm confused - is directing readers to relevant literature with clear citations really a conflict of interest? Laurajosephine1991 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The question was, what is your relation to the specific individual you are linking to? Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was unaware you were asking a question. The individual I am linking to is my PhD supervisor. I don't see the issue, since I am not editing the actual content of the page. Should I take the link away from her profile and just reference the literature?Laurajosephine1991 (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As you have a COI please do not add links to your profs work. You can proposal them on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there no nuance in COI? I spent a bit of time reading about COI on wikipedia and it seems the edits I made are in the realm of an uncontroversial edit. Yes, I have a COI since I am her student, but again I am just referencing literature. I thought Wikipedia was about "neutrality" and reliable sources... I don't understand how it gets more reliable than a reference to an open-source article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. If anyone wants to diversify the literature in the "further reading" section on a topic — which, on the sanatorium page, is a link to a student newspaper from 2003 — as long as it is relevant and a reliable source, shouldn't they be able to? Laurajosephine1991 (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The fundamental concern over COI relates to the judgement being exercised by the editor. If anyone wants to diversify the literature in the Further reading section, they need to make a judgement about whether it improves the article. The field of medical literature is huge and not every source will improve an article, as too many poor sources will swamp the valuable sources. Unfortunately, we find that editors with a COI are rarely the best people to judge whether their edit improved the article or not. That is the reason why we recommend that editors possessing a COI ought to raise their suggested edits on the relevant talk page and seek opinions from independent, experienced editors (whom we find are usually much better at evaluating the value of an edit). Your entire contributions seem devoted to promoting the works of A. Adams and I'm going to ask you politely to stop now and engage on talk pages to justify why those particular sources comply with our guidance at MOS:FURTHER – you may find the essay at Further reading helpful in understanding how the Further reading section is seen by editors. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to push an agenda unchecked, and if you continue edit-warring to replace those promotions, you may find your editing privileges here rapidly curtailed. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi RexxS, thanks so much for your comments - I take issue with all of them. You are concerned that the sources that I have contributed are "poor" and that they will "swamp" the valuable sources, and that I am perhaps not the best person to judge whether or not the sources improve the article or not. I am a doctoral candidate studying the history of architecture, so I think that I am actually a good judge of whether or not these sources help the topic. Tania Martin's work on the Grey Nuns Mother House, for example, is a great work on the architecture of the Grey Nuns, and also a published doctoral dissertation. My entire contributions are not to promote the works of Annmarie Adams, as you will see I actually added a lot of sources that meet the criteria of this very useful "further reading" article, that is they are topical, published books on the subjects I edited. Finally, I would like you to clarify what kind of "agenda" I am pushing - for the real issue here seems to be that I am adding literature written by women academics, and feminist literature to these pages. I am new on Wikipedia but after reading some articles on Wikipedia and sexism, I think it is pretty clear what is going on here. I am not "edit-warring": you are. And you are also threatening to remove my privileges for making edits in good faith to pages. COI in this community seems to be a vaguely applied blanket-policy to push the editors separate agendas. Face Cat (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC) I have been accused of having a COI since I have added my professors peer-reviewed published journal articles to pages, among other reliable sources to wikipedia pages. I am making these edits in good faith and truly believe that they improve the wikipedia pages, and the editors who have taken issue with my contributions have systematically removed all of them, even though they are objectively "good" sources on the topic at hand. Is there any nuance in COI, and can I get a second opinion on this situation?
 * You should review WP:COI if you haven't already. Without judging your edits, I can say that if you truly feel the contributions are valid, you should go to the relevant article talk page and make an edit request for discussion.  Posting your professor's work could appear to others as a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)