JoeJeffrey

October 2013

Hello, I'm MartinPoulter. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Behavioral economics because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Please read the Conflict Of Interest policy. It's not advisable to add promotional text praising a book of which you are a co-author. Wikipedia welcomes expert contributors, but isn't a platform for this sort of self-promotion. By all means recommend the book on the article Talk page as a suggested source. If this is a misunderstanding, then please get in touch on my Talk page. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for writing "book" when I was talking about a paper: the way you wrote the citation confused me a bit. If you want to say that the field of behavioural economics lacks a single comprehensive framework, using the paper as a source, then the way to do that is proposing the addition on the Talk page. If it's to be stated as fact on Wikipedia, then it needs to reflect a broad consensus of experts; otherwise you need to set out the competing perspectives.

If you want to say of the paper itself that it "provid[es] a rigorous systematic foundation that identifies and articulates the full range of factors", then that's we call "peacock terms" rather than a neutral, encyclopedic tone. If there is a book or review paper that makes that comment about your paper, then perhaps it could be quoted. Here on Wikipedia it's not possible to check credentials, so I don't doubt that others think your work is this significant, but articles have to be driven by published sources rather than hearsay. I hope this is helpful. Thank you for being open-minded about participating in Wikipedia, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)