User talk:DocPwy2
Welcome!
[edit]Hi DocPwy2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
September 2024
[edit]
Hello, DocPwy2. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.
Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.
If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello MrOllie, Thanks for making me aware of the policy, in the push for open science I have been exploring ways of making some of the academic contributions more widely available and thought this was a useful idea. I will remove a few and I am happy to argue a few that I think are quite novel. Thanks again for making me aware. DocPwy2 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Help me!
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with...
HI
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I have added a note a note to the legal section on this page relating to the challenges of representing protected entities (medical facilities and sites containing dangerous forces) and referenced a couple of papers. To my knowledge these are the earliest and only papers on the subject, they are mentioned in the ICRC discussion. However I am the author, so to avoid conflict of interest, please can this be sanity checked by someone else. Thank you DocPwy2 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you've read the part of COI on citing yourself. The edit conforms to the various applicable policies and guidelines and I'm unable to find any separate reliable sources that would support the claim. Please let me know if you have any questionss. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Dilettante, Yes thank you I have read that section now - Here is the source -https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-digital-emblems-report I refer you to footnote 17, page 14. DocPwy2 (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry. I found the source just fine, and the edit is good. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can make any changes soon you'd like to do by proxy soon. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Dilettante, Thank you I think propose the following edit with the one self citation, but I would also then add the ICRC reference https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-digital-emblems-report as well to cover the broader issues and the more recent proposals - There is however no agreement on how entities protected under the Geneva Conventions can be digitally marked to indicate their protected status.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sutherland |first=Iain |last2=Xynos |first2=Konstantinos |last3=Jones |first3=Andrew |last4=Blyth |first4=Andrew |date=2015-07-04 |title=The Geneva Conventions and Cyber-Warfare: A Technical Approach |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2015.1079044 |journal=The RUSI Journal |language=en |volume=160 |issue=4 |pages=30–39 |doi=10.1080/03071847.2015.1079044 |issn=0307-1847}}</ref>
- If you think this is appropriate? Thanks for your help. DocPwy2 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain why your paper should be cited, and not one of the other papers in that footnote? Or even just the ICRC reference alone? MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi MrOllie, Yes happy to - it is the only paper in the footnote that actually addresses the technical issues associated with the problem. The ICRC presents a proposal, but this is not actually a published peer reviewed paper. Either way I think the ICRC document needs to be here to highlight this as an on-going issue. I would argue in this case that paper+ICRC provides more context. DocPwy2 (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- If yours is the only paper that anyone has written on these issues, I'm not sure why it would be included in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is generally supposed to cover settled, mainstream information that is widely accepted. Some would say that Wikipedia is boring and behind the curve by design. Recent proposals that haven't been widely taken up are out of place here. You might be too cutting edge for us. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- The reference by ICRC makes a case for it not being UNDUE, but I'll defer to you on this. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- If yours is the only paper that anyone has written on these issues, I'm not sure why it would be included in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is generally supposed to cover settled, mainstream information that is widely accepted. Some would say that Wikipedia is boring and behind the curve by design. Recent proposals that haven't been widely taken up are out of place here. You might be too cutting edge for us. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi MrOllie, Yes happy to - it is the only paper in the footnote that actually addresses the technical issues associated with the problem. The ICRC presents a proposal, but this is not actually a published peer reviewed paper. Either way I think the ICRC document needs to be here to highlight this as an on-going issue. I would argue in this case that paper+ICRC provides more context. DocPwy2 (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain why your paper should be cited, and not one of the other papers in that footnote? Or even just the ICRC reference alone? MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry. I found the source just fine, and the edit is good. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Dilettante, Yes thank you I have read that section now - Here is the source -https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-digital-emblems-report I refer you to footnote 17, page 14. DocPwy2 (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)