User talk:WoodwardEliza

September 2021
Hello, I'm Notfrompedro. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Stuttering have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stuttering. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WoodwardEliza. 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) 17:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Masked priming
I wrote a piece stating that masked priming effects can differ depending on task, individual difference studies have shown that spelling and reading comprehension moderate the priming effect. My primary purpose is not to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers, it is to highlight the most recent findings that have been published in the literature. Also, the papers stated are trusted by the scientific community, since these have been peer reviewed and are reflective of what is seen as important for this topic. These findings have not been placed in review articles because there has not been a recent review that has united the processes together. Finally, I was taught that if you have the original study, cite that, not the review article because you should attribute credit to who found it out originally, not using a secondary source, unless you ask people to see review by XXXX.

WoodwardEliza (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia we do not highlight the most recent findings - Wikipedia is only interested in reporting on boring, widely used, settled science. That is why we use secondary sources such as review articles and not primary sources such as recent research papers. Things are done differently in academia, but the Wikipedia project is a distinct community with its own policies and norms. We also expect that conflicts of interest such as self-citations will be avoided. Also, can you explain your relationship to the account User:Geraldvineyard12? - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * However, most of the findings highlighted on Wikipedia for elderly priming, affective priming have been found to be irreproducible and irreplicable, while what I wrote about the priming effects depending on the type of task being used is correct and one of the few reliable pieces of evidence in the masked priming literature (see Davis & Lupker). Some of the review articles that have been highlighted are found to be incorrect, affected by publication bias, incorrect calculations amongst many other things. Also, I can concede that secondary sources are helpful. However, you still use primary sources for articles from the 80s and 90s, which have been found not to be reliable sources due to reproducibility crisis and small sample sizes. Thus, your argument on that Wikipedia is based on settled and boring science for priming at least is incorrect. Also, I understand the Wikipedia project is a distinct community with its own policies and norms and support. However, academia is trying now to interact with the public, so then we can work together and learn from each other. Yes, I understand you have your own policies, but the papers I have been highlighting such as the one for stuttering and dyslexia is based on well-reputed sources, sadly with no review article because no-one thought of doing it. Also the finding of dyslexia and stuttering being related has been highlighted as being settled but no-one ever provided the prevalence rate. My life partner Gerald Vineyard, included the section on ADHD and stuttering, yet you still kept that, despite the fact it is based on primary sources, so why did you not get rid of that section, along with the definition of dyslexia because by itself it makes no sense. Finally, I included the section on spelling and reading comprehension because it is recent but also based on a theory and findings from settled science, that has been shown over the number of years since twenty-ten. I think Wikipedia has such potential not only to show the settled science but to show controversy that science depends on methodological rigour and understanding but to show that science is not immune to biases. I have highlighted the works of small group of researchers but that is not because I idolise them, far from it, they are mostly people with egos. My work has been reviewed by them and I can say that I am only including them to give them the credit they deserve and to show that science in this area keeps moving. This may seem like a simple point but it is not, experts and the public have tended to assume once there is little discussion in an area, the area is dead. By showing them and updating the current works, you can breathe new life into these sections.

Also, Gerald is my life partner, in case you did not get that. Finally, you should check that you remove all papers by Jonathan Pruit, Brian Wansink and others, but you have kept them in despite the fact their findings have been found to be incorrect or fabricated.

WoodwardEliza (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)