User talk:Marcosmeweb

Reference spamming
Hello, Marcosmeweb. 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.

Editing in this way is 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); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Scientific articles should prefer secondary sources to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

The editing community highly values expert contributors, so 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 section on the article's talk page and add request edit to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My primary purpose is to contribute to advance our understanding of plant tolerance to drought. To this end, I have previously cited my own work. Citing own scientific articles as reference in Wikipedia is allowed within reason, when relevant to the topic of the article. My recent peer-reviewed study, published in the Nature portfolio journal Communications Biology, shows that mycorrhizas play a key facilitator role in the evolutionary processes of plant adaptation to drought across global climates. Why is this information considered irrelevant for a Wikipedia article on drought tolerance in plants? In addition, the current Wikipedia article is bias towards information on physiology and molecular biology of plant tolerance to drought, providing very limited information on ecology, and no information on evolution. This adds to the argument of favoring the inclusion of the proposed information. Therefore, as the issue was only the citation, not the information, I have added the information without citation. Marcosmeweb (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)