User talk:SauravBSaha

Welcome!

Hello, SauravBSaha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Draft talk:Chemical resistomics, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for your help. Will do the needful. This is my personal account. The article will not benefit me in anyway. Just like you, it is the spirit of spreading science. Can't thank you enough! Will get back to you soon.SauravBSaha (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)SauravBSaha[reply]

I'm afraid my view differs. broadly construed you receive a benefit from this article since you are or appear to b a part of the software element. Reading WP:PAID may help you to understand why we differ in our view of receipt of any benefit 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. The software discussed in the article is free open-source R codes. The codes are kept in github for easy access so that the research community can work together for common good. If you want I can remove the software part. It doesn't benefit me directly or indirectly. I have been a teacher and researcher throughout my life. The only reward is spreading this aspect of science.SauravBSaha (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)SauravBSaha[reply]

A greyish area. Let us step aside from this case to seek to determine better where a benefit might accrue.

Postulate an area of science unrelated to you. Dr Foo (by custom we use terms like Foo and Bar as entirely neutral anonymisers) writes a learned paper on a small aspect of that science. It's a legitimate paper and is peer reviewed, sufficiently cited to have inherent gravitas.

Here's where the issue appears.

Scenario: An editor, Bar, adds Foo's paper as a citation to an article on the science topic.
Foo adds their own paper as a citation to an article on the science topic.

1 and 2 have the same effect in the article. A valid citation is added. But in 1, While Foo's reputation may be enhanced becauise of Bar's action, Foo has had no involvement in that enhancement, whereas in 2, Foo has added the citation that may also enhance their reputation.

The benefit to Foo in 1 is happenstance, but in 2 it is as a direct result of Foo's actions

End of the hypothetical case

----

Now, back to the draft in question. If the software is a germane part of the topic then it should remain. The only question is that we are likely to be in scenario 2. All that this means in real terms, though, is that, assuming you agree with me (and please take the advice of others, perhaps at WP:TEAHOUSE) all you need to do is to deploy {{paid}} as a precautionary measure om your user page, with parameters filled out to the best of your ability.

The advantage to you of doing this is that it creates total transparency. You and your editing actions are above reproach. You can be accused of nothing. Indeed it is always better for us as individual editors to declare when there is the slightest doubt.

We are looking at the issue from slightly different angles. I look at it from Wikipedia's and the editors position, you are looking at it as real life! You've probably already worked out that Wikipedia has quirks and foibles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about self citation. I will try to redraft it and will inform you. It will be kind of you if you can review it. If you think it is worth going to wikipedia, I will request for resubmission or otherwise I will withdraw the draft. Thank you for your help. I admit this wikipedia world is a different world and needs a learning curve.:) SauravBSaha (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)SauravBSaha[reply]