If the self-citations are pertinent and useful to the reader, no amount is excessive. If they are not pertinent or not useful, any amount is.
Use judgment when assessing whether your readers will find references to your own work more useful than possible alternatives, if there are any.
There is no problem with citing your own work, even in significant numbers, if the citations are relevant, and I wouldn't suggest removing any such references.
However, if a high percentage of the references are self-citations, that suggests that either you are not very familiar with other people's work in the area, or there are not many other people ...
Write the paper you think it should be written and cite what you use, whether from yourself or others. Let the reviewers and the editor complain if they think you are being excessive. But there is really no need to self censor, especially when you have done important work in the field.
And in any case, this might differ by field, etc.
You can cite it as a "private communication" but it's more common (at least in my field, which is physics) to mention the person in the acknowledgements, for example, "We thank A. Smith and B. Jones for useful discussions". You can make the phrasing more specific if you want, for example, "We thank C. Davies for an insighful ...
Sometimes (not often) papers will formally cite the package.
This is more likely to work if the authors have published a peer-reviewed paper that describes the package; it makes it easier to cite/more likely to be cited. In the case of the tidytext package (which may or may not be the package you're referring to), you can find the citation info here. More ...
We could argue whether this is technically this is or isn't "the same source".
More productive is to ask, "could relying strongly on multiple essays in the same edited volume be putting blinders on your thinking?", and the answer is yes.
The use of multiple, genuinely independent sources ensures you have had to engage with different ...
Google crawled your data from somewhere, I suspect that source gave Google the wrong data. E.g., perhaps a bibtex listing is wrong. So, to fix the problem, you could fix the source.
Taking Mahmoudi as the middle name in Alireza Mahmoudi Kamelabad is a standard reading. To avoid that reading, you could use Alireza Mahmoudi-Kamelabad in the future.
It is probably best that it goes in the bibliography, which should represent a full accounting of the resources you draw on. It is an obvious place to put the URL of the web site.
In general, it is better to be a bit formal in such things than informal, whether you literally need to cite it or not.
There are at least four freely available databases which have this function. In random order:
Lens: In Lens, instead of the default Sort by Relevance choose Scholarly Citations (highest)
Microsoft Academic: In Microsoft Academic, choose SORT BY MOST EST. CITATIONS
Dimensions: In Dimensions, choose Sort by: Citations
ScienceOpen: In ScienceOpen, select Sort ...
You can use www.semanticscholar.org to see the extractions of the paper citing the specific article you want. In other words, you will see what and how other researchers use that paper, if applicable.
To do so, you need to type and search for the paper you want. You will see a section called "Citations: Publications citing this paper," and you can ...
Your question suggests that this was for a tutorial. Perhaps the tutor wished you'd looked around more, even though you found many useful separate references bound together. You can ask.
I doubt that an editor would object that this was a "single source".
There’s no unique answer to this as citation styles (in text or in bibliography) are somewhat personal or institutional. Some good ways of getting guidance include
Get one or more previous theses on the same topic and follow those models,
Look up established journals in the field and use their models (if they have a common one).
I personally prefer your ...
The main purpose of a bibliography entry is to properly identify the work, with enough information that (at least in principle) your readers can find the work and read it for themselves. If the github.io repository doesn't suggest a citation format, make up something reasonable that serves that purpose. The precise formatting doesn't matter (or if ...