← Home ← Back to /sci/

Thread 16714038

9 posts 6 images /sci/
Anonymous No.16714038 [Report] >>16714053 >>16714098 >>16714149 >>16714158
>finally publish paper
>"can't wait for people to read my contribution to basedence!"
>add my paper as a reference on a Wikipedia page in a relevant paragraph, not modifying anything, just added my reference to some others at the end of a sentence
>4 minutes later a huge faggot who is not even from the same field removes my ref and calls it "refspam" saying it's too specific
How do I diplomatically tell him to go kick rocks? I didn't deem it necessary but now I'm thinking of just adding another paragraph or sentence more specifically about my and others' research. What's the point of going through months of rigorous work, spending taxpayers money and passing peer review if I can't let the public freely and easily access the work they themselves supported?
Anonymous No.16714053 [Report]
>>16714038 (OP)
You ade an obnoxious cunt and the wiki faggot is right
Anonymous No.16714085 [Report] >>16714144
just add it again? what's he gonna do, keep removing it forever?
Anonymous No.16714098 [Report] >>16714144
>>16714038 (OP)
You never published anything, dumb frog.
Anonymous No.16714144 [Report]
>>16714085
I thought of that, the guidelines say not do "edit warring". I would have to revert it and write a fucking paragraph on how the change is relevant and waste my time just because this loser didn't care to read the paper to know it is relevant
>>16714098
This is my second publication, and more to come. Soon, it will be Doctor dumb frog to you, mister!
Anonymous No.16714149 [Report] >>16714201
>>16714038 (OP)
Is your research actually relevant to the paragraph you added it to?
Anonymous No.16714158 [Report] >>16714201
>>16714038 (OP)
No one hates wikipedia squatting losers more than I do but he's right in this case: fuck your original research and citation spamming.
Anonymous No.16714201 [Report] >>16714202
>>16714149
Yes. At worst, it might be a little redundant, as there are 2 other references for a sentence about using an organism for a specific technique to obtain certain data, mine is just another (very relevant) example. Still, why 2 refs of non-review articles is okay but 3 is not? I'm literally adding more examples for readers in case they want to know more without clogging the text, it's literally a minuscule [x] added and a footnote reference among hundreds other, how is this spamming
>>16714158
This guy has notifications activated for a page he, by his own admission, is no expert on while policing changes like his opinion is worth anything, and you think he is right?
Anonymous No.16714202 [Report]
>>16714201
It might be worth adding a few sentences of summary alongside the new reference.