User talk:Peto158

Wikipedia logo bronze.pngng Started on Mark_Wikipedia_banner_2.png
Buster Seven   Talk  12:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference spamming/self promotion
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear, reference I added is a new paper published in peer reviewed journal, hence, its quality was evaluated by independant experts in the field. It deals with macroecology of bird-mammal associations and it is one of largest and first qualitative investigations of macroecological patterns in associations between African birds and mammals. For instance, it offers evidence for many mutualistic and commensalistic associations between African birds and mammals. More importantly, it is relevant to each statement where I cited it. For instance, in cattle egret page it is stated that "They (egrets) often accompany cattle or other large mammals, catching insect and small vertebrate prey disturbed by these animals." without any source! So, at least, I added relevant and missing reference to this statement (clearly showing that egrets are often associated with large mammals). I understand that, under some circumstances, this can be considered as cite spam, on the other side, any wikipedia user can simply add better reference. Hence, I do not fully understand your concern.
 * We don't allow editors to canvas Wikipedia with references to their own work, regardless of the work's merit. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * According Conflict of interest and its subsection WP:SELFCITE it is not so straightforward as you presented. This section states that "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." I cited this work ONLY in relevant content and most often in cases where statements on particular bird-mammal associations were not supported by any reference or only poorly referenced. Moreover, I was not promoting any (my) controversial opinions, I simply added refercence where relevant. I think it is still better way than having wiki pages full of statements based on no sources (in some cases, some other editors thanked me for my edits).
 * You've (attempted) to add about 90 citations to your articles, in most cases adding little or no additional content. Feel free to start a discussion on the Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard asking if that's reasonable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have no problem with removing my edits from wiki pages if they are not reasonable (I am occassional user of wiki and I do not know all details of wiki rules). I did it with my best intentions, simply to add relevant sources to unreferenced or poorly referenced quotes (anybody can read added refences and consider whether they are relevant to topic or not). If this activity is strikingly harming wiki rules (despite relevance of sources to topic), I will not add such contributions anymore. Thanks for discussion.