|
Hello, I'm
Peaceray. I noticed that you recently removed content from
English honorifics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. I reverted
good faith edits: inappropriate substitution of EdD for OD. You may add the EdD back in with an appropriate explanation, but do not remove the DO.
Peaceray (
talk)
16:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Peaceray,
- Thank you for your message and work. I think I made the change, thinking that the D.O. / O.D. degree is little known outside the US and providing a more common example by putting EdD. Indeed, adding instead of substituting might be a better idea. I just restored my Wikipedia password and account so from now on I can make changes and contributions in a better and more traceable way. Kind regards! Maarten.vanhouten ( talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Maarten.vanhouten. 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) 23:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello,
- thank you for your message. I wasn’t aware of that and simply wanted to make available my open access research to relevant pages and public. Content wise, I thought, that would be appropriate. I can see why this may look like, or could in some cases be spamming, but obviously that wasn’t my intention. However, if it’s against policy, it is what it is. Thank you for your time Maarten.vanhouten ( talk) 23:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Hello, I'm
Peaceray. I noticed that you recently removed content from
English honorifics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. I reverted
good faith edits: inappropriate substitution of EdD for OD. You may add the EdD back in with an appropriate explanation, but do not remove the DO.
Peaceray (
talk)
16:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Peaceray,
- Thank you for your message and work. I think I made the change, thinking that the D.O. / O.D. degree is little known outside the US and providing a more common example by putting EdD. Indeed, adding instead of substituting might be a better idea. I just restored my Wikipedia password and account so from now on I can make changes and contributions in a better and more traceable way. Kind regards! Maarten.vanhouten ( talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Maarten.vanhouten. 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) 23:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello,
- thank you for your message. I wasn’t aware of that and simply wanted to make available my open access research to relevant pages and public. Content wise, I thought, that would be appropriate. I can see why this may look like, or could in some cases be spamming, but obviously that wasn’t my intention. However, if it’s against policy, it is what it is. Thank you for your time Maarten.vanhouten ( talk) 23:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)