User talk:Olbran

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Olbran. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Water-use efficiency, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ThaddeusSholto,

I'm quite new to Wikipedia Editing, so I'm happy to correct if I have done anything contrary to rules : I'm a research scientist in a governmental research center, and among others a specialist in water-use efficiency. I have seen serious factual errors on the wikipedia page on water-use efficiency, and there was also a tag that references were missing. So I have corrected the errors, added references and expanded the article. I have proceeded as I would in scientific writing : I have cited the most appropriate references I know of. Actually, among the 14 references cited, there are also two of my own. If this is a problem, I can take them out, but do not have a replacement.

Perhaps my Wikipedia name OlBran is the problem ? I have created it a long time ago. I haven't found a way to change it to my real name, but this is why I have put a link on my users page to my ResearchGate account, so everybody can see my name, affiliation etc.

I'm happy to take any comments if I should edit my changes on the water-use efficiency page.

Cheers Olbran (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your username isn't an issue. The fact that you rewrote the article to use your own work as the most cited source is the issue. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I have seen that you have taken out my two references (of overall 19 cited) . If 2 out of 19 is CITESPAM, OK, that's the rules, but that also means you have taken out of the further reading one of the few reviews on WUE that actually explains all the different definitions of water-use efficiency, without a disciplinary bias. As a scientist I find it a bit difficult to understand that I'm not allowed to cite my work at all when it is relevant. This curbs a bit my enthusiasm to expand and correct the pages on WUE and connected pages on plant ecophysiology. Olbran (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your interest in Wikipedia was wholly reliant on your ability to add your own work to articles then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right place for you. Citing your own work and yourself as an expert is a COI. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are an expert on something, then you usually publish on the subject. Overciting is clearly not good, but not citing yourself at all will also give a biased picture, especially if nobody else seems to want to write on the subject. Olbran (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a recognized expert then someone else will add your work. It isn't biased to not cite yourself. Claiming you are forced to self-promote otherwise you will show bias is definitely one of the stranger arguments I have come across. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]