User talk:Dudumanad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 2025
Hello, Dudumanad. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.
Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.
If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.
MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- The citation is intentional. There is nothing else on the internet to cite on the matter. Thee is only one book on antiviruses, just this one. The rest of the "citations" are obscure PDFs or PPTs. Literally there is nothing academic to cite on the matter, except this one. To understand that this is the only academic source on antiviruses, see this: https://spectrum.ieee.org/antivirus-software
- Look at your pages, they are full with hallucinogenlike obscure "citations". This one is academically written and published by Elsevier. You can deleted if that is the goal, and let forums and nameless pdfs as citations. Dudumanad (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- The articles already had citations, so there is clearly plenty of other material, including a number of journal articles. Can you explain how you are associated with the book or its authors? MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- No there isn't "other material", I just told you it is the only book in the world on antiviruses. Pointless to argue, just erase it. Springer, Elsevier, Wiley and the rest of the top academic publishers are tooooo good for wikipedia, but nameless blogs and pdfs are. I noticed from others about this abomination about wikipedia, this is why all universities interdict any citations from wikipedia. No wonder. Just erase the citation and that is it. Happy "editing" ! Dudumanad (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- The articles already had citations, so there is clearly plenty of other material, including a number of journal articles. Can you explain how you are associated with the book or its authors? MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.