User talk:Diddifischer

Hello, Diddifischer. 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.

Boghog (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Self citations

Hi Boghog, I am sorry, I really do not get your point. We added verified, new information on MLP. Please be more specific why you think that this was a violation before you erase our contribution. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddifischer (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Diddifischer:. The reason that I reverted your contribution to CSRP3 is that you appear to be a coauthor of the source that you added in your edit. In addition, you also appear to be a coauthor on sources that you added in support of all your previous edits. As I explained in more detail on your talk page, that is a strong indication that you have a conflict of interest. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote individual publications, but rather to present information supported by reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

CSRP3

Concerning your additions to CSRP3, a critical point that you left out if the following:

Whether primary neurons of other animals or humans express endogenous MLP upon injury, is currently unknown.

I have edited your additions to make this clear. In addition, in this edit with the edit summmary Boghog sabotaged my contribution unjustifiably and without any verifiable reason. He tries to prevent the latest research results from being published in Wikipedia. The justification for reverting your edits has been given above. Self-citation if frowned upon. Concerning the latest research results, one need to treat these with a high degree of caution. A shocking high percentage of research cannot be repeated (see reproducibility crisis). That is why secondary sources (review articles) are preferred (see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS). Boghog (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References