User talk:Sefer12

October 2021[edit]

Hello, Sefer12. 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 a 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.

MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Temporal network. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Temporal network. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ifnord (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MrOllie (talk)[edit]

Thank you, MrOllie. The articles that you removed are the first articles in the field of temporal networks. The articles are well-cited, and written by authoritative scientists. I strongly believe that your actions are unjustified. Thanks again.

Editing User talk:MrOllie[edit]

Thank you, MrOllie. The articles that you removed are important contributions to the focal topics--cited by the scientific community as well as by the media. These articles are emphatically not promotional as you suggest. I encourage you to read them before making any judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefer12 (talk • contribs)

Sure, the articles themselves are not promotional (and I did not suggest that). However, your repetitive additions of mentions of the same person's work across many wikipedia articles is promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Sefer12. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Behavioral contagion, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. If you are the author, or involved with the publication, of the article you seem to be crow-barring into as many Wikipedia articles as you can - you need to make this known. Ifnord (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive mass-citation of sources from the same author(s), apparently caused by a conflict of interest. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sefer12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I respectfully believe that blocking my account is unfair. All of the material (and references) included in my edits genuinely represent important work in the area. For example, under the topic "Temporal Networks" I included the following citation: Braha, D., & Bar‐Yam, Y. (2006). From centrality to temporary fame: Dynamic centrality in complex networks. Complexity, 12(2), 59-63. I encourage you to examine its citation count, as well as its content at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b68a4e4a2772c2a206180a1/t/5c603f90a4222fa3c7db036a/1549811602636/Complexity_Braha_Original_w_Cover.pdf Does this sound like promotion? This is the first paper published in this area, which for some reason was not included by the people that established this Wikipedia page. I look forward to your honest response.

Decline reason:

This unblock request fails to address the concerns that other editors have expressed with your editing. Any future unblock request will need to address the question of your connection to the author(s) of the reference you are adding. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please describe your connection to the author(s) of the reference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, I am not related to the authors. I am passionate of complex systems theory, and often follow leading scientists in the field.

I find this statement difficult to believe. Every single one of the contributions you have made to this project appears to be adding a short sentence citing a piece of work by D. Braha (or sometimes just adding the citation without any assertion) - I can't find a single contribution in your history, aside from edits to this talk page following your block, that does not follow this pattern. You seem to follow a very specific scientist in the field, and exclusively add links to their work. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Girth Summi. I will definitely would make an effort to be more diverse in my future edits. Thank you for your good work.