Template talk:Uw-refspam

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, please discuss this template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace instead of here.

Documentation

Good idea to create such a more specific template, thanks to Smartse and Jytdog. I have added some standard documentation elements, but it would be great if a native English speaker could fill out and tweak the "When to use" and "How to use" advice. GermanJoe (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too GermanJoe. Not too hot on the template procedures. I'll add something about when to use it, I think the how is pretty self-explanatory. SmartSE (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this maybe too specific? I was looking for a template to warn someone who'd been adding their music blog as a source to a lot of articles, but this template is worded squarely at scientists, so is of no use there. It wouldn't take much to word this more generically, with the "scientific articles should" as an aside. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why we dislike overuse of self-citations

This warning has occasionally claimed that citing yourself leads to WP:NOR violations. This isn't generally true. (It does often lead to problems, just not WP:NOR-specific problems.)

Here's why:

"Original research", as defined in NOR, is adding something to Wikipedia that has never been published anywhere – including, e.g., in your book, your paper, your blog, etc.
Self-citation is adding a citation to your own book, your own paper, your own blog, etc.
Now, if the information is published in your own book, your own paper, your own blog, etc. – then it can't actually be "original research", as that term is defined on Wikipedia, because that information was previously WP:Published.

The main content problem with self-citation isn't original research. The main problem is WP:UNDUE attention to your ideas. (Also, it somehow violates editors' sense of fairness, even if the citation is adequate and the material needed, because we think you'll somehow get some benefit from it.)

If this warning weren't already so long that I doubt it gets read, then I wouldn't mind linking to NPOV, but as it stands, I think it'd be better to halve its length and leave the explanations to WP:SELFCITE (which, by the way, cites DUE and SPAM as the reasons why we discourage it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]