User talk:Peterdime

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Peterdime! Your additions to Transnistria have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterdime, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Peterdime! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello, Peterdime. 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) 18:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie Thank for your comment! I also appreciate the careful wording of your message. You say that "it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers." How did you infer that? I have only made a couple of edits so far with some of them reverted without proper justification. I try to add information available in the academic space. I have read multiple entries on Wikipedia and many of them refer to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. To my surprise, other Wikipedia entries refer to tabloids. There are also some Wikipedia references to authoritarian propaganda outlets and statements issued by dubious individuals. I understand that you are discouraging researchers to cite unreliable sources. Please do check all my edits and indicate which of my edits are problematic. Most of them include references to articles published in peer-reviewed journals and I believe that they add value to the overall entry/Wikipedia. While I understand your concerns, it seems to me that instead of adding more original content to wikipedia, some editors engage in the unnecessary policing of new users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdime (talk • contribs)

All of your edits so far cite the same author, and elsewhere you have written that you hold the copyright to the materials cited. It was not a difficult inference to make. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie Not all my edits cite the same author, but I guess this is irrelevant here. Plus some of the works are authored by multiple authors and include books as mentioned in the Wikipedia rules. It's a shame that researchers can't contribute to wikipedia and editors engage in arbitrary and vengeful deletions as it happened in my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdime (talk • contribs)

I think it's a shame that experts who are undoubtedly familiar with a range of sources of diverse authorship so often seem to only want to cite themselves. - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie Well, if you have ever read or written an academic article, you should have noticed that there is nothing wrong in citing your own work. This is what you are familiar with in the first place. I mean you can't expect a chemist to edit articles about Moldova. In fact, not citing your own work is regarded as a case of self-plagiarism in academia. Furthermore, in the case of state capture in Moldova, there is only one recent academic paper and it is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps the question should be why there is no mention of state capture in Moldova on Wikipedia rather than deleting the sub-pages mentioning it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdime (talk • contribs)

Many things which are common in academia are not acceptable on Wikipedia, this is a distinct community with its own norms and practices. Indeed, if there is only one paper on something, on Wikipedia we could consider that a minority viewpoint, not to be covered. That is why other editors were reverting you. - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie This is becoming ridiculous. How can state capture in Moldova be a minority viewpoint, while state capture in South Africa, Hungary and the United States is not? When you make such comments about Eastern Europe, it is obvious to me that you venture into unchartered waters. You probably do not speak Romanian and are not familiar with the given topic to judge whether the phenomenon of state capture in Moldova is a minority viewpoint. I recommend that you search for the phrase 'stat capturat' in Romanian or talk to any person from Moldova. You will see plenty of mentions everywhere about state capture in Moldova except Wikipedia. I have spent an hour writing a sub-page about the topic just to see it deleted by an irresponsible editor. Given that the topic is prevalent in Moldova, but absent on Wikipedia, this looks like censorship rather than editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdime (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm just saying that we don't include things on Wikipedia based on a single source. With the bar that low, I'm sure you can image all the fringe stuff that would be in the encyclopedia. But if you're going to personalize the discussion and accuse me and others of censorship, I think I'm done responding here. - MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie Well, it is obvious from the preceding discussion that you are not an expert on the topic of state capture in Moldova. However, even if you lack expertise in this field of study, you decided to remove the page on the ground of "spamming." If you were a bona fide editor, you could have recommended ways to improve the section on state capture. In this sense, I believe that your action violated Wikipedia's deletion policy. Moreover, I am hereby asking you publicly to help improve the section on state capture in Moldova by suggesting additional content or sources. Here is the Wikipedia guideline for editors on this: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." Thanks in advance!

Use of ResearchGate in articles

Please do not add (and definitely do not edit war to restore) content referenced to ResearchGate. Per consensus, it is not a reliable source and should not be used; please see the website's entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo Is there a Wikipedia policy on Researchgate? Furthermore, the link in the sub-section on state capture in Moldova led to a free version of a peer-reviewed article which was posted on Researchgate. This is one of the research-sharing platforms out there having the same goal as Wikipedia. To avoid an edit war, I believe the arbitrary removal of my paragraph on state capture by another user-editor should go through the dispute resolution process. Peterdime (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Peterdime[reply]

I linked to the community consensus on the use of ResearchGate in my first message (here is a more direct link). The links next to the

symbol labelled 1, 2, 3 can each be clicked to review the discussions that led to the consensus that its use should be limited. You can also request further input regarding the use of a specific paper hosted by ResearchGate as a reliable source at the reliable sources noticeboard. When the inclusion of material is contested on Wikipedia, the onus is on the individual wishing to restore the content to gain consensus to do so.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo I believe I followed the advice on sources. Here is a quote from the link you've provided: "Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)." This is exactly what I said above, namely that the Researchgate link is to a peer-reviewed journal article.