User talk:Sob7.ims

July 2021
Hello, Sob7.ims. 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) 11:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mr Ollie,

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't read the wikipedia policy before. But I have some comments: 1- In scientific publishing in peer reviewed journals self-citing is not a form of spamming, actually, it is very important and encourged, of course when it's relevanet and meaningful. 2- Citiation in wikipedia doesn't count to any metrics that are used in research institutions, hence there is no benifit or promotion in this situation. 3- The added references are filling a big gap in the articles' references which is the electrochemical methods that are a hot topic nowadays and are of great interest from scientific, environmental and economic prepectives. 4- All the added references are for reviews and articles published in high impact journals that are highly cited and recognised. In addition one of the reviews that is deleted was the first in the field and led to many others to follow. 5- By rejecting these edits you are leaving the articles without reference to modern electrochemical synthetic methods and prevent the wikipedia reader from getting information about this vital field for no good reason. 6- I hope you ask the experet who decided to reject it or anybody else to add some references to fill the gap. I don't mind if it's mine or not, but I can't do it myself as my contribution is rejected already without a proper discussion to evaluate if the edits were really a kind of spamming or not.

Kind regards Mohamed Sob7.ims (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)