User talk:Kmeek1

October 2019

Hello, Kmeek1. 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) 19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.

Graham87 04:29, 17 October 2019 (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).

Kmeek1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

These edits were not intended to be promotion or citation spamming. These articles add content to the published pages by high profile scientists and researchers that improve the rigor of the page. The citations add more updated academic sources (published within the last year) to make the pages more thorough and complete, which I do not think should be blocked. Without updates of recently published papers, Wikipedia runs the risk of quickly becoming outdated. These contributions to the scientific community should be disseminated through Wikipedia, which is a platform that explains scientific advances in more layman terms for the public to view to improve the overall education of society.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not for merely disseminating information or merely educating people. This is an encyclopedia. Since your goal here seems to be to spread the word about these scientific papers, there are no grounds to lift the block, and as such I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2019 (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.