User talk:TheScienceFraudSquad

This is the page of The Science Fraud Squad

TheScienceFraudSquad (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 16 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Patrick Matthew page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheScienceFraudSquad, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheScienceFraudSquad! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Mike Sutton (criminologist)

Hi, I'm Perey. I'd like to talk about some of the edits you've made to the article "Mike Sutton (criminologist)". As an encyclopaedia, it's important for Wikipedia to describe theories and research, without endorsing them. This often means not putting in lots of details, to avoid giving readers the impression that one perspective is more important than others, just because we have more to say about it. Relatedly, I see that you've encountered some resistance to your edits to "Patrick Matthew", and (to judge from your user page) this has frustrated you. You have my sympathy! But I also see the point of the other editor; while "start again" might have been harsh, that was a lot of text to devote to Sutton's research, when compared to the brief mentions of others' perspectives on the matter.

But let's get back to "Mike Sutton (criminologist)". Not endorsing Sutton's research also means choosing words carefully. I'm worried about some of your language, like calling Sutton's evidence "uniquely discovered"; that may be literally true, but it emphasises how "special" (for want of a better word) Sutton's work is, and not how correct it is. You have also stated several times that Sutton's paper was "peer reviewed". While peer review is important in protecting against unreliable sources, it's not the only thing that matters, and making a special point of mentioning it sounds like trying to fend off criticism before it happens.

It occurs to me that pretty much all of your edits are to those two articles mentioned. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is it possible that you are connected to Mike Sutton's work in some way? If so, please make sure you're following Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines.

Lastly, it always needs to be said: thank you, for your efforts in building Wikipedia! -- Perey (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]