Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- As you've persisted in spamming numerous articles with references to your own works, and have ignored notices like this one or complaints on the articles, I've blocked you temporarily from editing. Please re-read WP:COI; if the concepts in your own works are widely considered to be important, someone else will add them eventually, or you can bring them to other editors' attention in the Talk pages of relevant articles. Simply inserting references to your papers everywhere is not acceptable. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note that you are welcome to improve articles in your areas of expertise, and in some cases a reference to your own work may be appropriate. But simply going through a dozen articles, making minimal changes except adding citations to your papers is heavily discouraged for its similarity to spam and the apparent conflict of interest (just as would creating new articles primarily on your work). When in doubt, discuss your proposed additions on the Talk page. And if people complain about your additions, it is especially important to discuss them on the Talk page rather than simply re-adding references to your work after they have been removed. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 04:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Steve, for your feedback and your previous note; I would like to discuss my previous additions as I believe they were not only appropriate, but they would help the potential readers of the articles; and given this previous incident and the fact that I am a new user, I do not want another misundersstanding, whether real or perceived; basically, it is clear that Wikipedia is becoming a major reference and as a consequence, it is important that the contents reflect the truth and reality of this world as much as possible; I will just take one example of the section on "instantaneous frequency"; if you make a search on Google Scholar, you will find that the most cited article on this topic is the paper that I previously added in the section (it is my own paper in the Proceedings of IEEE, 1992) and you can check for yourself that it is clearly the earliest and most comprehensive treatment of the subject. I can make a similar argument about the other editions I made. I would like therefore to request your authorization to re-enter the relevant references, but also make some alterations in the text to better justify these additions (which I agree I failed to do in my previous editing). Please also note that there are also many other articles where I could have also added some of my references, but I did not do it and I will not, as although it would be justified, there is not the same strong argument as what falls directly in my area of expertise and research leadership. Please assist with this genuine request. Thanks for your time and best regards. Boashash ( talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Boashash ( talk) 06:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, just going through dozens of articles and adding references to your work, and only to your work, gives the impression that your primary interest is not in improving Wikipedia but rather in promoting your own papers. Making minor changes to the text, especially if they are just to emphasize results from your papers, will not help matters. I'm sure you can appreciate how this raises suspicions.
- There may be cases in which references to your own work are appropriate. I recognize your contributions on instantaneous frequency, although I should point out that there is a widely cited paper ("Instantaneous frequency", Proc. Inst. Rad. Eng. 41, p. 548) on the subject by Shekel from 1953, and there were well over 100 papers on the topic before your 1992 paper. An appropriate review of the subject would place your paper in the context of the larger body of work by many authors on the subject.
- Be selective and cautious about citing your own work, don't do so in multiple articles at a time, and cite them (if at all) in context along with work by other authors. Consider citing reviews or textbooks by other authors, when such are available, instead of your own work, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Especially as a new contributor to Wikipedia, start out by proposing your additions on the Talk page of the articles, in particular for suggesting citations to your own work, to see how your proposals are received in a particular article. Don't be surprised if other editors resist proposed self-citations, especially in topics that have been written on by hundreds or thousands of authors (e.g. Harmonic analysis).
- — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Steve, for these useful guidelines; I was aware of the papers you refer to and they are cited in my 1992 review paper which includes a full review of the previous work, but it is still a good reminder that no contributors start from scratch. My most pressing academic concern and what really motivated me to get involved is the article that deals with instantaneous phase and instantaneous frequency; it is clear to me that the current references given are not really appropriate and they should be updated to avoid misleading the reader. Can I assume that I am now authorized to modify this article and its references to better reflect the topic and to help the reader access the more relevant sources? given that I will of course be much more careful this time and follow the guidelines you suggested to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Please let me know. Other articles where I noticed a problem can wait for another time, as I want first to do this right. Kind regards. Boashash ( talk) 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think starting at the Instantaneous phase article sounds like a good plan. Formally, you don't need any "authorization" to edit any article, it is just a question of treading lightly and being courteous while you figure out Wikipedia etiquette. If you plan on making major changes, especially as a new editor, it is always a good idea to propose your changes in a new section on the Talk page ( Talk:Instantaneous phase) first to see if any other editors want to comment. It will ease WP:COI concerns if you mention that you are the author of review articles on the subject and solicit a second opinion on self-citation. You might also drop a note on User talk:Bob K about your plans, as that editor has been fairly active in the signal-processing articles in general and in Instantaneous phase in particular. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 23:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will do this, but gradually. I have also noted a request to add references to an article on time-frequency analysis that did not have any reference. After a lot of thinking, I have answered the request for help and actually added my references for the time being which I am certain of to be the most useful for now and I will think of some other relevant ones for my next session. I made it clear in the text that the editor is also the author re perceived COI. Thanks for the interation with you; that was useful. I would like also to present myself as an acknowledged starter of this field when I organized the first international conference in this field and followed up by a number of workshops over a period of 10 years in the 80s. However, I agree that it does not excuse the need to do proper editing and proper referencing. Thanks and best regards. Boashash ( talk) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- As you've persisted in spamming numerous articles with references to your own works, and have ignored notices like this one or complaints on the articles, I've blocked you temporarily from editing. Please re-read WP:COI; if the concepts in your own works are widely considered to be important, someone else will add them eventually, or you can bring them to other editors' attention in the Talk pages of relevant articles. Simply inserting references to your papers everywhere is not acceptable. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note that you are welcome to improve articles in your areas of expertise, and in some cases a reference to your own work may be appropriate. But simply going through a dozen articles, making minimal changes except adding citations to your papers is heavily discouraged for its similarity to spam and the apparent conflict of interest (just as would creating new articles primarily on your work). When in doubt, discuss your proposed additions on the Talk page. And if people complain about your additions, it is especially important to discuss them on the Talk page rather than simply re-adding references to your work after they have been removed. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 04:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Steve, for your feedback and your previous note; I would like to discuss my previous additions as I believe they were not only appropriate, but they would help the potential readers of the articles; and given this previous incident and the fact that I am a new user, I do not want another misundersstanding, whether real or perceived; basically, it is clear that Wikipedia is becoming a major reference and as a consequence, it is important that the contents reflect the truth and reality of this world as much as possible; I will just take one example of the section on "instantaneous frequency"; if you make a search on Google Scholar, you will find that the most cited article on this topic is the paper that I previously added in the section (it is my own paper in the Proceedings of IEEE, 1992) and you can check for yourself that it is clearly the earliest and most comprehensive treatment of the subject. I can make a similar argument about the other editions I made. I would like therefore to request your authorization to re-enter the relevant references, but also make some alterations in the text to better justify these additions (which I agree I failed to do in my previous editing). Please also note that there are also many other articles where I could have also added some of my references, but I did not do it and I will not, as although it would be justified, there is not the same strong argument as what falls directly in my area of expertise and research leadership. Please assist with this genuine request. Thanks for your time and best regards. Boashash ( talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Boashash ( talk) 06:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, just going through dozens of articles and adding references to your work, and only to your work, gives the impression that your primary interest is not in improving Wikipedia but rather in promoting your own papers. Making minor changes to the text, especially if they are just to emphasize results from your papers, will not help matters. I'm sure you can appreciate how this raises suspicions.
- There may be cases in which references to your own work are appropriate. I recognize your contributions on instantaneous frequency, although I should point out that there is a widely cited paper ("Instantaneous frequency", Proc. Inst. Rad. Eng. 41, p. 548) on the subject by Shekel from 1953, and there were well over 100 papers on the topic before your 1992 paper. An appropriate review of the subject would place your paper in the context of the larger body of work by many authors on the subject.
- Be selective and cautious about citing your own work, don't do so in multiple articles at a time, and cite them (if at all) in context along with work by other authors. Consider citing reviews or textbooks by other authors, when such are available, instead of your own work, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Especially as a new contributor to Wikipedia, start out by proposing your additions on the Talk page of the articles, in particular for suggesting citations to your own work, to see how your proposals are received in a particular article. Don't be surprised if other editors resist proposed self-citations, especially in topics that have been written on by hundreds or thousands of authors (e.g. Harmonic analysis).
- — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Steve, for these useful guidelines; I was aware of the papers you refer to and they are cited in my 1992 review paper which includes a full review of the previous work, but it is still a good reminder that no contributors start from scratch. My most pressing academic concern and what really motivated me to get involved is the article that deals with instantaneous phase and instantaneous frequency; it is clear to me that the current references given are not really appropriate and they should be updated to avoid misleading the reader. Can I assume that I am now authorized to modify this article and its references to better reflect the topic and to help the reader access the more relevant sources? given that I will of course be much more careful this time and follow the guidelines you suggested to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Please let me know. Other articles where I noticed a problem can wait for another time, as I want first to do this right. Kind regards. Boashash ( talk) 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think starting at the Instantaneous phase article sounds like a good plan. Formally, you don't need any "authorization" to edit any article, it is just a question of treading lightly and being courteous while you figure out Wikipedia etiquette. If you plan on making major changes, especially as a new editor, it is always a good idea to propose your changes in a new section on the Talk page ( Talk:Instantaneous phase) first to see if any other editors want to comment. It will ease WP:COI concerns if you mention that you are the author of review articles on the subject and solicit a second opinion on self-citation. You might also drop a note on User talk:Bob K about your plans, as that editor has been fairly active in the signal-processing articles in general and in Instantaneous phase in particular. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 23:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will do this, but gradually. I have also noted a request to add references to an article on time-frequency analysis that did not have any reference. After a lot of thinking, I have answered the request for help and actually added my references for the time being which I am certain of to be the most useful for now and I will think of some other relevant ones for my next session. I made it clear in the text that the editor is also the author re perceived COI. Thanks for the interation with you; that was useful. I would like also to present myself as an acknowledged starter of this field when I organized the first international conference in this field and followed up by a number of workshops over a period of 10 years in the 80s. However, I agree that it does not excuse the need to do proper editing and proper referencing. Thanks and best regards. Boashash ( talk) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)