86.120.188.100

It seems like you are invested in making sure Gagniuc's book is cited first and often at Markov chain, to the point of reverting without explanation any edits which move citations of Gagniuc out of the lead section. While I'm sure Gagniuc's book is lovely, note that Wikipedia is not intended as a venue for advertising or promotion. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Finally, it's a bit ridiculous to keep citing a 200+ page book without mentioning specific page numbers. All of these citations to Gagniuc are subject to summary removal if not made more specific. –jacobolus (t) 00:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You clearly want to replace a well-established book with the book you wrote. You use a lot of fake wikipedia accounts (and VPNs) to mix up edits to look "legit". You are pushing books to wikipedia, using small interwoven edits from multiple accounts. There is no other reason for your clear bad behavior. Please have some decency and verticality. I'm sure a book of 1000 academic citations is on that page for a good reason, and that's value regardless of what you're desperately trying to push. Too bad the wiki has degraded so much with people like you and can be fooled so easily by people like you. Is good that the AI is here, it deletes bad behavure like yours automaticaly. 86.120.188.100 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that neither I nor any of the other people you were getting into it with have ever written any book about Markov chains (I have never written a book at all). There is no need to make paranoid accusations of bad faith.

Wikipedia is not intended to be a platform for self promotion. If you would like to contribute productively, by researching and writing articles, copyediting, making diagrams, tracking down historical sources, etc., that is welcome, but just inserting links to Gagniuc's books and papers in every nook where they are plausibly relevant while making no other edits is more like spamming than productive contribution.

Expert editors sometimes even cite their own work in Wikipedia articles, when e.g. they are the only or most relevant source for some claim, but most are modest about this and try not to cite their own work disproportionately or in places where it is just one among many possible sources.

Doing nothing but promotion is abusing Wikipedia to achieve an ulterior purpose, is disruptive to the project, and is dealt with by bans when conversation doesn't fix the problem. –jacobolus (t) 17:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Are you perhaps the same person as user:MegGutman, an account banned in 2018 for edit warring and incessant promotion of Paul Gagniuc's work? In any event, you seem to be back at it in special:diff/1231651023. Please desist, or your IP will likely be blocked and the page Markov chain or any others where you won't give up on this may become permanently semi-protected. If you have further feedback, try starting a discussion at talk:Markov chain. –jacobolus (t) 20:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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. Please stop. 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 continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply