User talk:Publishedarticles

August 2019
Hello, Publishedarticles. 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 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) 13:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

November 2021
Hello, Publishedarticles. 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.

CV9933 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2024
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Tramadol. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi ThaddeusSholto, I noticed that many edits of this user, including long-standing ones, have been reverted recently. Have you reviewed each of the academic edits independently to verify whether they improve the encyclopaedia? I understand and agree with your concern, but I believe that those are good-faith edits (as seen from their edit summaries, text added, etc.; maybe a bit too enthusiastic though ...). I’ve suggested the user to modify their edits to address to your concern if possible. Please see my post below. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome
 Welcome to Wikipedia, Publishedarticles! 

Your edits
Hi, I noticed that many of your edits have been reverted recently. There seems to be a concern of conflict of interest from another user. While I do believe that author of a paper can add it to Wikipedia in good-faith to support legitimate content, I suggest that you re-add your edits by modifying each of them to include *one more* reference (together with the ref. you previously added) to support the added content to ease the concern. I know you are not the sole author of the papers cited, but it’s still better to have one more supporting ref. for each addition. Also, I noted that some of the refs. you’ve added may have problems complying fully with our sourcing guidelines.

For example some of them are only “Case reports” as categorised by Pubmed (as seen on the top left hand corner of the page, and also the bottom, under “Publication types”), although the papers’ titles contain words like “Reviews” (e.g).

Not all the refs. you added have that problem though (e.g).

Wikipedia welcomes and values expert editors. Please don’t be discouraged by the reverts. We would be glad to have experts like you joining our Medicine Project. See you there. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * BTW, you may want to take a look at this too. Regards, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)