User talk:ShervanGharari

August 2023

Hello, ShervanGharari. 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.

Editing in this way is 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); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Scientific articles should prefer secondary sources to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

The editing community highly values expert contributors, so 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 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) 20:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you very much for your message.

I have been encouraged to edit Wikipedia for knowledge mobilization. For a while, I was thinking about a few messages that I can contribute to the wider public. I have come up with two, from my work of past 10 years or more, that I already edited.

1- Rating curve "temporary shift" and "override" practices. That is new to me and many people who use the streamflow data as modelers and decision-makers. The practices are known at the institutional level that reports the streamflow but have never been presented to the public in the way we have done to my knowledge.

2- Link between the rate-independent and dependent hysteresis modeling. While it is possible to create rate-dependent behavior from rate-independent models in my point of view and based on our past work.

I think the statements are helpful and can lead to a wider perspective/discussion in both cases. And I would very welcome it if more people were assigned to look into the changes. Citations are included because there is little reference on both to the level I know (that is why I contributed them).

Having said that, I noticed there is a lot of room for improvement in various articles such as Rating Cure for example. I noticed some of the sentences are confusing and not well written! I'll move to edit them as well. Additionally noticed hysteresis in hydrology is missing on the hysteresis page. Just to communicate more edits are on the way regarding these two topics that will be general with more general citations. Need to find some time and energy to do that as well!

Thank you very much for your message. and I fully understand the concern with excessive self-citation (which is not my intention here).

Let me know if I should take any more action. And I am very happy to edit wikipedia!

With kind regards,

Shervan ShervanGharari (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I have included the changes that I am keen to include with more citations and a bit more detailed so it can be reviewed by expert in the field.

I am looking forward.

Thank you for the instruction and let me know if I should do anything additional.

Shervan ShervanGharari (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]