Edditive

Edditive, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Edditive! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Four-dimensional product has been accepted

Four-dimensional product, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bradv🍁 06:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Four-dimensional product) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Four-dimensional product.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for developing the informative new article on "Four-dimensional product".

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:COI link canvassing

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear OhNoitsJamie,

I apologise if the edits I have made seem like spamming. I am an academic researcher based in technology disciplines and perhaps my passion for some of the topics I have contributed to on Wikipedia may fuel my desire to improve certain articles; however, this also means I have useful references and insights on topics that I believe I can contribute to, just like anyone else who is contributing to articles on Wikipedia that they have knowledge of.

For example, I made contributions to the 3D selfie page which previously lacked relevant content, links, and seemed to be written by someone who may have a business selling 3D selfies (based on the focus only on 3D figurines and photos from a specific business). Current references are only online news stories, there is no academic, peer reviewed contributions to the page. While I am happy to see you did not revert back to the previous version and kept my expanded description, I notice that you removed a citation I made to a peer reviewed book chapter on the topic of 3D selfies, which I believe adds significant merit to this article and the resources available to someone interested in the topic. I would argue that such a reference enhances the credibility of the article.

Other contributions I have made follow similar logic, and I am very happy for others to asses whether they are a COI. If I have crossed a line, then I do apologise and will happily modify my editing practice on Wikipedia, or avoid it completely given the close links between the knowledge I have through research and the way Wikipedia gathers research. I am quite new to the platform and had simply hoped to make some public contributions to the topics I'm passionate about, rather than only contributing to more academic communities. Any self citations are simply because the article I'm editing is either quite new and lacks other references, or is a more established article that requires some updating to consider the latest knowledge on the topic.

I hope that makes sense, and I'd be interested in your feedback. Thanks. Edditive (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)edditive

While we welcome subject matter experts, it's difficult not to see a pattern of self-promotion in your edits. Specifically, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself and WP:REFSPAM. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and your reply OhNoitsJamie, that helps clarify things somewhat. I am more than happy for my citations to be removed, reduced, or for the community to review additions and judge whether they add value to the articles. As a community project, I expect that this sort of review takes place, and can only say that I have tried my best to include works only as they are relevant and add value to the particular topic. What are the next steps to rectify this? I note that you have already removed many of the citations, so will others also review the citations and decide if they are valid? For example, I would still argue that the 3D selfie article benefits from my academic reference to add some credibility and further reading for anyone looking at it seriously as a concept. I spent months researching the topic and am confident there are no other academic sources on the topic, which is why it was chosen for inclusion in the book by the editors. Some of the other more established topics have vast pools of research to draw from, however, some of my contributions are more niche and therefore there are limited resources. Thanks. Edditive (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Edditive

I've cleaned it up a bit (removing primary-sourced material). It's highly preferable that references are added organically by third parties rather than by the authors themselves. It's usually not appropriate to cite names unless the researcher or the research is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to edit the article OhNoitsJamie, I think it reads well and I look forward to seeing how it matures over time. I have followed your lead on the Four-dimensional product article as well and removed any reference to contributor names, and removed the link to the thesis. Edditive (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Edditive

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Responsive_computer-aided_design regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)