User talk:Mattnwilliams
Confusing information about SBP
Hello, thank you for being involved, I would like to share with you some information that will help us to understand the confusion existing for this website. Some years ago, this site was affected or Hijacked by psycholjournal fake website, if you see in predatoryjournals, under letter S: https://predatoryjournals.com/hijacked/#S, you will notice that the website is calling the fake website as SBP Journal. This is wrong information, you can see the issue opened with them in: https://github.com/stop-predatory-journals/stop-predatory-journals.github.io/issues/67 If you see the history, this information has caused a misunderstood. The suggestion is done in order to clarify this. Franciscoangelmtz (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, thanks for that. Two points here:
- 1) That github issue you've linked provides no evidence to back up the idea that SBP is not a hijacked journal. A github issue you have opened yourself is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's criteria. If you are yourself affiliated with the journal and that is why you believe it not to be hijacked, then you should be transparent and say so. I have nevertheless not restored that part now since I do know that Beall's list may be out of date.
- 2) Regardless of the hijacking issue, the information I placed on the page stating that the journal both charges authors article processing fees and also charges subscription fees is validly sourced from the journal's own website. You have no excuse to be removing that information. I have restored that part now. Please do not remove it again. Mattnwilliams (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Franciscoangelmtz in addition to my comment above, I see you are an employee at SBP journal. Please read the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest page. Editing by users with a COI is discouraged, and at a minimum you should be disclosing this when editing. Mattnwilliams (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2024
Hello, Mattnwilliams. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.
Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. 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.
If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, 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) 01:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there, I appreciate the concern but that's a bit of an exaggerated description of a very small number of edits I've made today. The relevant policy here is "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive". I have not breached any of these elements, and I would appreciate if you didn't make unnecessary reversions unless you can clearly demonstrate that one of these elements is breached. Mattnwilliams (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just edits you made today. When you leave a cite to yourself with every edit you make, that is what the policy means by 'excessive'. As a subject matter expert, you are no doubt familiar with a range of sources of diverse authorship. Cite those - or if a cite to yourself is really the only option, follow the COI practices and bring it up on the article's associated talk pages for others to evaluate. MrOllie (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1) The policy doesn't say that. You're just delivering a personal interpretation. 2) That isn't an accurate description of my edit history in the first place. I have finished editing for today but I really don't find your attitude here constructive or welcoming. Mattnwilliams (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you think I am not summarizing the Wikipedia's stance on this accurately, feel free to ask for a second opinion. WP:COIN would be the relevant noticeboard. MrOllie (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Matt, you really need to heed MrOllie's good advice. If you keep resisting, you'll end up blocked, just like a Noble Laureate in physics was blocked, and he is obviously one of a rare breed of top subject matter experts. If you don't respect our rules, the same fate could befall you. Your research and writings could even be blacklisted if this becomes a problem. The real world could find out and your reputation damaged. Be very careful. Listen to advice from more experienced editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1) The policy doesn't say that. You're just delivering a personal interpretation. 2) That isn't an accurate description of my edit history in the first place. I have finished editing for today but I really don't find your attitude here constructive or welcoming. Mattnwilliams (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just edits you made today. When you leave a cite to yourself with every edit you make, that is what the policy means by 'excessive'. As a subject matter expert, you are no doubt familiar with a range of sources of diverse authorship. Cite those - or if a cite to yourself is really the only option, follow the COI practices and bring it up on the article's associated talk pages for others to evaluate. MrOllie (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)