User talk:Richardprivate

Welcome!
Hello, Richardprivate, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources, weight, npov, etc.
Hi there,

It looks like you've added a good amount of content to a few Wikipedia articles, sourced primarily to Wenliang Wang's Pooling Game Theory and Public Pension Plan. Usually when someone's edits revolve around a single publication it means they're on Wikipedia to promote said publication or the ideas it contains rather than to build an encyclopedia. This may not be the case -- you may just be someone interested in the subject who happened to see and read the book within two weeks of its publication. I should say, though, that Wikipedia's terms of use requires that conflicts of interest be disclosed, and that it furthermore has strict rules about promotion.

Self-published sources are also not typically considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia policy. That doesn't mean it's not a great book, but that "reliable" for us implies things like fact-checkers, editorial oversight, peer review, etc.

Looking at these edits in particular, there's a lot of language here that stands out as a bit unclear, overstated, or giving the source undue weight (presenting it at a length or with a gravity disproportionate to its significance within the entire body of literature on the subject). I reverted your edits at Bounded rationality, but would like to hear your thoughts on these issues so will leave the rest (which I noticed afterwards). That doesn't mean someone else won't revert, of course. I think that you could help Wikipedia's articles, but these contributions need some work. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your edits again to Bounded rationality. The issue is that you're citing Wang's research directly to make claims about it. As a rule, we prefer secondary sources rather than the primary ones. In this case, we'd want to see a journal article or the like to show that other academics agree with Wang's work, rather than just what Wang has said. (Plus, the independent coverage would establish that Wang is an established academic whose work may be relied upon.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)