User talk:PaulineKay

You edit on reuse of human excreta

Please see my comment to you on the talk page to explain why I have removed the "further reading" section that you had added: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reuse_of_human_excreta#New_possible_publication_about_China_human_excreta_reuse EMsmile (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaulineKay, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PaulineKay! 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 Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why are you adding Further reading sections to so many articles?

I see you are a new user and you have started to add "further reading" sections to quite a few articles. How come? What are you trying to achieve? See here a previous discussion about "further reading" lists. Or see here in the Manual of Style. It says there "Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly." Your additions don't do that (from what I have seen so far). It also says: "This section is present in fewer than 3 percent of Wikipedia's articles." I think in most cases, a further reading section is not actually needed. If you are new to Wikipedia, there are better ways to contribute. Why not rather add important references as in-line citations to support statements that haven't been referenced yet? EMsmile (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I see what is going on. You work for RCC Perspectives and they have told you to add their publications into a "further reading" section on as many articles as possible? You should disclose your conflict of interest in that case. EMsmile (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will try and rather do in-line citations then. --PaulineKay (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the oublcations I've added are indeed concerned with the topic as a whole, I'm not adding any stuff randomly. --PaulineKay (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those publications are all from RCC Perspectives. So it's pretty obvious that you are being paid by them to do so. Please disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. Otherwise you might get banned. EMsmile (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I’ll definitely take care of it. It will only take a few days. But I‘ll add it to my user page at the beginning of next week. PaulineKay (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm EMsmile. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sustainable city have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. It seems to me that you are adding publications by RCC Perspectives under "further reading" to random articles, just to promote their publications. Please contribute to Wikipedia in a more constructive way, rather. EMsmile (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EMsmile. Since I am on Wikipedia, I did not know about all this. Thank you for drawing my attention to potential conflicts of interest. I've added a disclosure to my user page. I am not making promotional use of Wikipedia as I only add things, which I think are relevant to a respective article. PaulineKay (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaulineKay, thanks, that's clearer now. Still I think it's not good practice to add publications under "Further reading" in a kind of "fly by" mode (i.e. without making improvements to other part of the article) as it does not add value to the article. You should instead look for sentences that have missing citations (in some cases there will be a "citation needed" tag). There, you could possibly add relevant publications from your organization. So think of in-line citations first and foremost, not "further reading" lists which are in most cases quite pointless. Also think carefully if that particular publication from RCC is really the best, most recent, most reliable one in each case. If you have further questions, you can also reach out to me on my talk page, or via the internal e-mail function (see by user page under "contact me"). EMsmile (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EMsmile, that's good to know. I will definitely think more carefully about how and where to add information. PaulineKay (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]