Talk:Lake Mackay

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lake Mackay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226061106/http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/landforms/largest-waterbodies.jsp to http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/landforms/largest-waterbodies.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150321041059/http://lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/13889/52_lakemackay.pdf to http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/13889/52_lakemackay.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831063820/http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research_program/publications/australian_aboriginal_studies/2003/abstracts_2003 to http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research_program/publications/australian_aboriginal_studies/2003/abstracts_2003

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of two deleted sentences

In January 2024, a User misrepresented the WP:SELFCITE policy to justify deleting (from the Description sub-section) a two-sentence paragraph, first added in 2008, on the importance of Lake Mackay and its mythology to the local Aboriginal populations. The User had no knowledge of the relevant subject matter and deleted this long-standing material without first discussing the proposed deletion here. As their various User accounts have now been removed from Wikipedia, I have taken the WP:BOLD step of restoring the deleted section by reverting their action and am flagging that reversion here. For transparency, the sub-section does contain one self-citation, which is to a peer-reviewed paper on Lake Mackay in Australia’s highest-ranked academic journal on Aboriginal studies, published by Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Please review the reversion and comment here if you have any concerns about it. LloydGraham (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was WP:SELFCITE spam and therefore removed. Please cease from spamming references to yourself on to Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you find problematic in the content that you deleted? WP:SELFCITE makes it clear that the mere presence of a self-citation (which in this case was even declared on the Talk page) is not sufficient grounds for peremptory deletion; you must have valid concerns about the content itself (WP:FOC).

Specifically, WP:SELFCITE says: “Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive.”

The material that you have deleted without discussion from Lake Mackay is relevant (the Aboriginal understanding of Lake Makay is important because the population of the region is almost entirely indigenous); is reliable (draws from a research paper in Australian Aboriginal Studies, a peer-reviewed academic journal); is neutral in tone (impersonal); and is hardly excessive (three sentences).

WP:CITESPAM says: “Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references […] that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content, but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation.”

The Australian Aboriginal Studies paper on Lake Mackay was cited precisely once in the whole of Wikipedia, in an entry where it was directly on-topic. In no way does this fulfil the criteria for WP:CITESPAM.

The closing remark of WP:CITESPAM specifically warns against the error that you have made: “Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.” LloydGraham (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Lloyd,

Many thanks for dropping me a line. I hope this note find you well.

When it comes to the self-cite issue, my thoughts are essentially the same as those expressed by Thaddeus Sholto when the matter was raised at WP:COIN back in January (here [1]). The only difference is that I’m more than happy to assume good faith on the COI issue re: Danny Malboeuf, although that isn’t really relevant here.

Back when your self-cite issue was raised at COIN in January I know that you were keen to deconstruct the exact meaning of the self-cite policy. To be honest, I don’t think a close textual analysis is required as the purpose and intention of the policy seems abundantly clear – it relates to individuals such as yourself whose primary activity on Wikipedia is to add multiple self-citations, whether that be on the same article or (in your case) across a variety of different articles.

The issue seems to me to be quite straightforward, i.e. that editors wishing to self-cite should seek consensus before doing so. In the various articles concerned (which interested editors can see on your contribution history for May '24) I do not see that there was ever any consensus to that effect. Indeed the opposite was the case, which was why being WP:BOLD was highly inappropriate given past deletions. Your frequent attempts to self-cite do seem to me to be self-promotional, an impression which is markedly reinforced by the material on your userpage (which, incidentally, seems to be well outside of the policy on what can be included on userpages).

Also, the absence of any acknowledgement from you above that you have added similar self-citations to a variety of articles (not just this one) seems an obvious attempt at misrepresentation. Other editors will obviously draw their own conclusions from your lack of openness on that point.

I have not made an “error”, I have prevented a recidivist self-citing spammer from once again attempting a blatant breach of the relevant policy.

I trust that my thoughts here are clear. In signing off I would urge you once again to stop adding references to your own work onto Wikipedia because – as we all know – there is no place for promotion on Wikipedia. You may also wish to reconsider the wholly inappropriate material on your userpage.

Hopefully the notes above are of assistance.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Axad, you were asked what was wrong with the content that you deleted from Lake Mackay, and – since you haven't engaged anywhere with the content – the answer seems to be… "Nothing." So I hope you will humor me by letting me respond to what you did actually say (quotations of your words are italicised).

… when the matter was raised at WP:COIN back in January. Please remember that it was I who escalated the dispute to the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard – hardly the action of a genuine spammer. What nobody there ever pointed out is that I was reinventing the wheel; the whole research academics vs. vigilante zealots standoff is already covered by WP:EASECOI. See, for example, this contribution from 2007: “The guidelines do allow experts to cite their own scholarly publications at arms length, NPOV being adhered to, naturally. One problem is that not all the admins know this or sometimes choose to ignore it. I got into a spat with an admin over correcting some details of a bio […] Next I know, the admin is wandering thru Wikipedia deleting as many of my postings as he can, under the excuse that I have cited some of my own scientific work. I point out that under the rules this is perfectly OK, as long as the citation is at arms length. So he goes over and attempts to change the rules. Meanwhile, members of his ‘clique’ are sending public messages to each other proposing to look very closely at my other postings. Apparently, to send a message [… so, yes] there are groups of people who cooperate in faking a ‘consensus’-- against the rules, naturally.” Sound familiar to you? It does to me.

The issue seems to me to be quite straightforward, i.e. that editors wishing to self-cite should seek consensus before doing so. If that is indeed what WP:SELFCITE intends, then why does it not say so? As I pleaded on WP:COIN over six months ago, “if editors are in fact not allowed to include any self-citation without first discussing the addition on the article's Talk page, the policy should be amended to say that.”

Your frequent attempts to self-cite do seem to me to be self-promotional. Really? I did the math and supplied the answer in the COIN discussion: at the time, I had provided WP with content involving a total of 84 citations wholly unrelated to me versus about 8 for which I had some level of authorial involvement [2]. I’m a retired academic; given that I mainly contribute to topics about which I have extensive knowledge and a track-record of research publications, I do not see that as coming remotely close to WP:CITESPAM, which the policy defines as “adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers.” Moreover, none of my few self-citations was ever inserted gratuitously across multiple WP articles in the manner (rightly) prohibited by WP:CITESPAM.

… the wholly inappropriate material on your userpage … The biographical info on my userpage is all factual and truthful. It discloses my real-life identity and details my academic qualifications, career, interests, publications, and achievements so that other editors can see who I am and assess the topics on which I am likely to be an expert or competent contributor. It would help if other editors were obliged to provide the same level of transparency; for example, I have no idea whether you actually have any competence to pass judgement on the specialised material that you have deleted from Lake Mackay. Does it not worry you that this material was in place for 16 years, and that not one editor who contributed to the page over that long timespan had any issues with it until your wingman peremptorily deleted it as “self-promotion” in January?

Also, the absence of any acknowledgement from you above that you have added similar self-citations to a variety of articles (not just this one) seems an obvious attempt at misrepresentation. No WP policy requires or even recommends that. The Lake Mackay Talk page is for talking about the content of the article Lake Mackay and nothing else. The fact that I have provided constructive content to a handful of other pages which cited other papers of mine (usually along with many non-self citations) is irrelevant here. In any case, the collusion between Thaddeus and yourself has seen them all removed, including one that was added by an independent editor after it was successful in a formal Request for Edit process [3].

WP dispute resolution rightly requires that every disputed edit must be considered in isolation and on its own merits. The COIN process is “for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline.” This is the opposite of “Cherry-pick everything you dislike from the perp’s edit history, assume bad faith, and weaponise your prejudice in order to discredit them and publicly blacken their character.”

I have not made an ‘error’, I have prevented a recidivist self-citing spammer from once again attempting a blatant breach of the relevant policy. Sorry, but the WP:SELFCITE and WP:CITESPAM policies simply do not say what you would like them to say. Passing off your own preferences as WP policy may have begun as an honest mistake, but continuing to do so after the error has been brought to your attention constitutes fraud – especially when you misrepresent WP policy to criminalise other editors who have made policy-compliant contributions and to damage WP articles by improperly removing constructive content.

Do you realise that your determination to claim another scalp at any cost has caused you to violate many of WP’s five-pillar principles? How do you reconcile calling me “a recidivist self-citing spammer” with WP’s core principles of WP:FOC: “Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor” and WP:NPA: “Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor”? Only one of us here feels bound by the rules, and it isn’t you.

If you want to be a self-appointed enforcer of WP policies, you need to (1) know and respect what they actually say, and (2) comply with them yourself, leading by example. Sadly, your remarks here demonstrate that you do neither.

All that being said, would you now care to reconsider your recent deletion of long-standing content from Lake Mackay? You have removed all of the material which provided a First Nations perspective of this major landform, which is located in a region whose population is almost entirely Aboriginal. In so doing, you have unbalanced the article’s coverage in favour of white/colonialist perspectives at the expense of indigenous ones. LloydGraham (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Lloyd, you have been consistently reverted on this issue now by multiple editors, that is what is called a WP:CONSENSUS. I appreciate that you can go on and on about your own personal and self-serving definition of self-cite, but that is not the consensus interpretation. Please see WP:SATISFY for further information here on your continued efforts to argue the point.

There has been no collusion between myself and Thaddeus Sholto. Claiming that those who disagree with you are part of some kind of plot is an attempt to denigrate the genuine consensus that opposes your actions.

The material on your userpage is clearly contrary to WP:USERPAGE and should be deleted.

With regard to your status as a retired academic, please see WP:CAI about this kind of inappropriate use of credentials.

The policies on self-cite and spam clearly relate to the cumulative effect of multiple edits. Your attempts above to try to deal with each edit individually are an attempt to evade the clear intention of those policies. Similarly your comment above re: concentrate on the edit and not the editor - but the issue is one of whether there is a concerted attempt by an editor to add citations to his own work, and thus some consideration of the editor's purpose is necessary and relevant when dealing with those issues.

You are obviously an intelligent and articulate individual so either you are very well aware that you are distorting the relevant policies, or you have deluded yourself. I'm not sure which of the two is the case, but either way you are wrong.

I've no doubt that you can argue and argue and present 100 bankrupt and self-serving arguments in further walls of text. However, your continued attempts at self-promotion are transparent. Axad12 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)