User talk:Wikiditor

Primary vs. secondary sources
Generally speaking, Wikipedia should use secondary sources for psychology articles and scientific articles in general. This is the reason I reverted your last four edits. For more information, you can read this: WP:PSTS.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible self-citation?
I hope you have read and absorbed the point of my edit summary in this edit. Biogeographist (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that citing your paper or article is against Wikipedia rules: "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 added another reference to the Science Communication article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditor (talk • contribs) 09:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is indeed "against Wikipedia rules". That sentence that you quoted above must be read within the context of other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * First, your blog on Medium.com is self-published (that's what WP:SELFPUB discusses) and you should never cite it. Citing one's own blog is naked self-promotion.
 * Second, Wikipedia "should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources" (WP:PSTS). A scientist who is contributing content to Wikipedia citing mostly secondary sources and occasionally primary sources is building the encyclopedia properly. A scientist who is just inserting paragraphs about their own primary-source research into various Wikipedia articles is "not here to build an encyclopedia" (WP:NOTHERE) but instead to promote their own work (WP:PROMOTION, WP:PRESSRELEASE) through self-citation (WP:SELFCITE, WP:CITESPAM). We don't want this kind of behavior in Wikipedia, and we certainly don't want to encourage it. That is why all of these policies and guidelines exist.
 * It is dismaying that you have apparently inserted links in multiple articles (removed here and here) to what appears to be your own PR agency, https://sciencecom-agency.com, the front page of which says: "We will insert your findings in a relevant Wikipedia article. This MIT study has proven that scientific articles on Wikipedia eventually receive more academic citations." This is blatantly encouraging WP:REFSPAM! And furthermore, if someone is paying you to do this refspamming, and you have not disclosed that you are a paid editor (which you have not done) then you are violating Wikipedia's policy on paid-contribution disclosure (WP:PAID).
 * Finally, this edit of yours is a copyright violation of the cited source (WP:COPYVIO). You copied and pasted text directly from the source without quotation marks. Biogeographist (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for these information. I inserted that links because of requirements on secondary resources. Now I understand press release on website isn't good secondary resource. I am not paid for these editation. I understand that in case of paid editations you have to disclosed it. I don't want to harm Wikipedia. I just want to help spread knowledge. I apologize for this and thank you for correction.Wikiditor (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, "spread knowledge" is an ambiguous term: it can mean WP:PROMOTION, which is bad on Wikipedia. That is not the kind of "spreading of knowledge" that we want. This edit of yours, which I reverted, said: "Scientists can also insert their findings in a relevant Wikipedia scientific article. The MIT study has proven that scientific articles on Wikipedia eventually receive more academic citations." That edit reads very much like the statement from the PR agency at https://sciencecom-agency.com that I quoted above: "We will insert your findings in a relevant Wikipedia article. This MIT study has proven that scientific articles on Wikipedia eventually receive more academic citations." This is not the right kind of "knowledge spreading". Increased citations, outside of Wikipedia, of publications that are cited in Wikipedia should be an unintentional side effect of Wikipedia's citation of valuable knowledge by independent disinterested editors; it should not be the intentional goal or purpose of the addition of citations to Wikipedia by editors with a conflict of interest (WP:COI). The latter is academic WP:CITESPAM, a side effect of academic careerism, a cousin of WP:CITOGENESIS, and a perversion of Wikipedia's purpose. Biogeographist (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the relationship between you and User:MaterialistX?
I was just looking at your edit history and noticed Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiditor and Sockpuppet investigations/MaterialistX. Back in February 2016 both you and were suspected of being sockpuppets in your combined edits to Articles for deletion/Quantum anthropology (2nd nomination).

Looking at the edit histories of both you and now, I see that in March and April of this year, both of you were adding citations of publications by Radek Trnka et al. to multiple Wikipedia articles ( here:     and  here:  ). Some of these edits were rightly reverted by.

This behavior is consistent with the quotation above from https://sciencecom-agency.com about inserting "findings in a relevant Wikipedia article" with the goal to "receive more academic citations". The edit summaries written by you and are also extremely similar. If you and are the same person with two accounts, you should stop using one of the accounts since editors are expected to use only one account. If you are not the same person, then there is clearly some other close relationship between you two, and you should stop refspamming together. Biogeographist (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We are not same person. Edits you removed have no connections with sciencecom-agency.com. Wikiditor (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, two of the edits that I removed (here and here, already mentioned above) are connected to https://sciencecom-agency.com since they link directly to it!
 * It is hard to believe that there is no connection between you and given all the evidence above, but at least you are not the same person. Biogeographist (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant other edits you have removed. These two just mentioned press release on websites. And I apologized for it. But others edits are not connected to this agency in any way. I tried to enrich Wikipedia about scientific information, which I thought was not harmful. Thank you for your notice about REFSPAM etc. I will be aware of it.Wikiditor (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello Wikiditor. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Wikiditor. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This edit is obviously the one referred to here in a case study by sciencecom-agency.com. You cannot claim that this was "pro-bono" in order to sidestep WP:PAID while offering it as part of a package of paid work. You must disclose it. Please make the necessary retrospective disclosures. SmartSE (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I din't receive financial compensation for edit you mentioned. It is just for an illustration of the service. It is also in the case study here "These edits was made pro bono. We are aware of Wikipedia’s paid editing guidelines."Wikiditor (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The all case study you mentioned was made for free. Nobody paid us for any of these services. It is just an illustration of services. I know about Wikipedia Paid editing guidelines. Wikiditor (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

But if it is also taken as a "paid contribution" I posted mandatory disclosure at my page. I apologize for mistakes. I will be aware of it. The Agency was co-founded one month ago as a way how to communicate scientific results. We don't want to do anything bad. Other my contributions are not associated with this company in any way, MaterialistX has also no connections with this company (it exists from September and we made just psychotherapy edits); and if there are such problems, we can eliminate Wikipedia editing from our communication services; our intention was not bad, we wanted actualize Wikipedia articles about newest scientific knowledge, becasuse we know Wikipedia editors are missing; and also help scientists to communicate their results to public. We thought it could be win-win. Wikiditor (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I did several research on Wikipedia and I thought that incorporating references to Wikipedia can raise its quality. So I used research articles which I know and tried put their findings to relevant Wikipedia articles. With Biogeographist you erased all my work for several months as refspam. Refspam in Wikipedia is defined as "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I don't now if you evaluate all articles and references or just "refspam" everything because it comes from me. Wikiditor (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for disclosing. I appreciate that you did not see the problem with it, but as has been explained by Biogeographist, the edits you are proposing to make are never going to be permitted by the Wikipedia community so I'd strongly suggest that you don't offer that as a service. Regarding the older edits - they were nearly all adding references to one author which is a classic example of refspam. Whatsmore, as -Megaman en m pointed out, it is rarely appropriate to cite primary pieces of academic research on Wikipedia, regardless of who adds it. This is an example of an edit that is massively WP:UNDUE too - out of all the scholarly material written about death, a survey of 14 emos is not even slightly important and thus should not be included. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)