User talk:Choi Hak

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Choi Hak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rational addiction, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. It's a really bad idea to cite yourself or any works that you've written. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rational addiction. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I've received messages from C. Fred saying that "I cite myself or my own works", and that "my edits appear to be vandalism".

In the topic concerned, "Rational Addiction", I've just followed what the precedant has done. For example, under criticism someone wrote: "Economist Ole Rogeberg has used the theories as a case example of what he calls "absurd theories" in economics," with a reference to Rogeberg's paper. How can C. Fred know that this edit is not written by Rogeberg himself? Is the statement not citing the suspected work?

I think the value of Wiki is the quest for the truth, but if you keep deleting dissenting opinion, you are far from reaching the truth.

C. Fred even threatened to cancel my right (freedom of speech). Is Wiki any different from dictatorship?

Choi Hak (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, your username is Choi Hak, and the author of the work you cited is "Choi, Hak". You are therefore, by your username, holding yourself out as that individual.

Second, users of Wikipedia do not have a right to "freedom of speech". Within the definiton of the US First Amendment, free speech is defined as Congress making no law restricting it. Wikipedia is a private website and is free to establish any policies and restrictions that it feels appropriate on the use of its servers—including restrictions against blatant promotion and original research, as well as guidance on how to edit when one has a conflict of interest.

Since you're holding yourself out as the author of the paper you're trying to cite, you should probably proceed along the path for editors who have a conflict of interest: propose the edit on the talk page, then let independent editors review the request and, if it's appropriate, make the change to the article.

Finally, I am leaving your {{help me}} template in place. Since I've been involved with the removal of your edits, I want to bring in an independent party to review the situation and see what suggestions they have. —C.Fred (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis of the situation is accurate, C.Fred. Choi Hak, your question about Rogeberg is valid, but the edit where that section was added adds multiple sources and even if it were Rogeberg himself, he did it in a neutral way by presenting multiple opinions. As C.Fred suggested, you should either not reference yourself, or post on the talk page if you wish to make additions directly related to yourself. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]