User talk:Federicoventurini

Anarchism

Hi Federicoventurini,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 16:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Abdullah Öcalan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. JesseRafe (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to wikipedia so I can make mistakes. However, I would like to stress that the two edits that I made and you reverted, adding a book in the Bookchin page and another to the Ocalan page, are legit and not spam. Both books (that I co edited) are referring to the pages where I posted them and the section (further readings) I think is the one correct. Could you please explain me why you consider them as spam? Thank you. Federicoventurini (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hiya! I'll let @JesseRafe respond but when new users post the similar links/sources to multiple articles, there is usually a conflict of interest to declare. In your case, the source's author is the same as your username. fwiw, I think the Bookchin addition is acceptable but even better would be to actually incorporate the text into the article. Also as a general introduction to academics editing on the topic of their scholarship, I highly recommend this article. Happy editing, czar 23:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Czar. And thank you for responding, Federicoventurini, though I only reverted you on Bookchin. Yes, I was perhaps over hasty. When I saw the Öcalan edits, which were reverted, along with Paradise Chronicle's, by another editor, and then PC reverted them back using an edit summary in the first-person plural referring to themselves and to you, Federico, it seemed that two new editors were acting in concert, which is what we call meat puppetry, and not allowed. That editor was, it turns out, uninvolved with you and you have no means to control what they say.

That said, when I looked at your contributions, they seemed to only consist of adding your own work to Wikipedia. While it very may well be "legit" academic work, the self-serving nature of adding links to your own work does fit the definition of "spam" as I see it, specifically WP:BOOKSPAM. I agree with the spirit of Czar's comment that if you're an expert in the field, you could add more to the substance of the articles, but please cite other sources. If your book or other work is notable enough, other readers and editors could add it as a relevant source to cite material used to substantively expand the two articles. But it is bad form to cite one's self. One way to redress the conflict of interest is to post on the article's talk page or on a Wikiproject, one of which Czar invited you to above. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)