User talk:Neweclipse

November 2018
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Health promotion, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.  Grey joy talk 09:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

April 2023
Hello, Neweclipse. 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.

MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this information. I am very careful in using the citations in a balanced and nuanced way, to not violate the scientific or ethical conduct. In cases where I cite my own research studies, it is not because of self-promotion purposes, but rather that these areas are in line with my expertise and I simply know that I can justify the specific statement with this type of reference. But I will be more careful in the future. Best, Chris Neweclipse (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you reverted way too many of my contributions. It seems very unfair as a vast majority of the contributions were referring to robust research studies and not a way to self-promote. For example, a systematic literature review about involuntary admission in psychiatry. Yes, I was one of the co-authors, but it is a literature review, covering the scope of several research studies. Neweclipse (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Way too many of your contributions were self-citations, and many of them were placed in medical contexts where they did not meet WP:MEDRS requirements. MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Noted. I see that there is a way for me to contribute still with our research, by letting volunteers review my suggestions and citations before I propose an edit. From my understanding, I could use the "talk page" pertinent to the specific article. How do I do this in practice? When I look at the talk pages, they appear to be forums dealing with general discussions and not specific edits. Or am I missing something? I also couldn't find the "request edit" function on the talk page. Only the "edit source" function. Best, Chris Neweclipse (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Instructions will be displayed if you click on the request edit link in the message above. If you have general Wikipedia questions, there is a pool of volunteers who will be happy to answer them at WP:TEAHOUSE, you'll probably get better and faster replies there than on your user talk. MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Much appreciated! /C Neweclipse (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)