User talk:LucaCacciolatti

Conflict of interest, self-promotion etc.
Please read Conflict of interest. It seems self-evident that the only purpose of your contributions to Wikipedia is self-promotion. I suggest you stop, before you are obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Andy,
 * thank you for your message. I personally do not think I am contraveneing the rules of Wikipedia. I am not self-promoting. I am a full-time Academic and what I am doing is disseminating knowledge. In Academia we create knowledge through publications and we disseminate it in a variety of ways, including making it public. I disseminate the knowledge I create by making my expertise available to the reader.
 * Should you still believe I am contraveneing Wikipedia rules I will be happy to have my entries reviewed as I am sure there must be a process in place to challenge this.
 * Kind regards,
 * Dr Luca Cacciolatti
 * University of Westminster, London LucaCacciolatti (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Andy,
 * I noticed that you are reverting my edits. I confirm that mine is not self-promotion/spamming as I am also adding citations from other bits of relevant research, citing other researchers. Could you please stop reverting the work I am doing? It is rather frustrating to work on the improvement of articles and see the work un-done because of a misunderstanding.
 * I look forward to hearing from you soon.
 * Kind regards
 * Luca LucaCacciolatti (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If there is a misunderstanding here, It seems to be on your part. I am well aware how academia disseminates knowledge. The method you have used isn't compliant with the way we work here though. While we appreciate relevant expert knowledge, citing relevant sources, we would expect those with expertise in a subject to do more to propagate it than to insert self-quotations and self-promotional fluff of marginal relevance into articles in this sort of manner:


 * As for having your 'entries reviewed', beyond the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (hopefully we need not go that far, though you could start a discussion on the noticeboard if you like), there really isn't a single locus for such things, and generally content disputes are dealt with on relevant article talk pages. If reverted, I'd expect a subject expert to be able to explain not just why particular content needed adding, but why it was necessary to cite that specific expert on the matter. If such 'knowledge' were a part of the general academic corpus, it shouldn't require citing the contributor. And if it isn't, it probably doesn't belong in the article. While Wikipedia doesn't entirely forbid self-citation, it tends to view those who indulge in it extensively with considerable scepticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Andy,
 * A couple of issues I am struggling understanding:
 * "If such 'knowledge' were a part of the general academic corpus, it shouldn't require citing the contributor. And if it isn't, it probably doesn't belong in the article." - As far as I am aware all positive statements need citations. I simply inserted relevant positive statements where I though they would add value.
 * "While Wikipedia doesn't entirely forbid self-citation, it tends to view those who indulge in it extensively with considerable scepticism." - Therefore, is self-citation allowed?
 * "fluff of marginal relevance into articles in this sort of manner" - What you may consider fluff might inspire other researchers and students, the same way apparently irrelevant material inspired my throughout my studies. I find this comment a little judgemental.
 * I am happy for you to advise on how I should progress here. Would you like me to stop contributing to Wikipedia? Should I delete me entries? Should I cite more of other research as a passport to add the information that I feel appropriate? Would you like me to add an explanation for each entry on why the entry adds to the body of knowledge?
 * Andy, do not get me wrong. I am not disputing your views or your skepticism (or the skepticism of Wikipedia, which you represent). I only need clear advice on what to do. Perhaps Wikipedia is not the right tool to disseminate high-quality papers' findings? (Please note that all those citations come from scientific publications deemed excellent at an international level).
 * I look forward to hearing from you.
 * Kind regards
 * Luca LucaCacciolatti (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/LucaCacciolatti. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Andy,
 * I have splept over what has happened yesterday and after some reflection I understand why what I did was considered as self-promotion. I offer my apologies for that and confirm I will not add any more of my work to Wikipedia articles.
 * Kind regards,
 * Luca LucaCacciolatti (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/LucaCacciolatti. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Girth Summit  (blether) 15:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)