User talk:Mp670

June 2020
Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that you recently removed content from Data compression without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Data compression. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.   CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mp670. 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) 11:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. Well, the algorithm is open source, accepted, and published by IEEE, which is a well-known worldwide scientific community. In addition, there are also several references on this page, which are not survey papers. So we have not exactly got what you meant. Should the reference be a survey paper or an old research which has been cited by many other survey or research papers?


 * I should also inform you that reference number 2 is published in a fake journal with regard to the list of predatory journals: https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp670 (talk • contribs)


 * Per WP:DUE, we need indication that someone other than the proposing authors have considered this important enough to write about. Wikipedia is not for cutting edge developments, it is for widely dispersed, widely accepted science. - MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)